I don't understand how someone can be worshipped while simultaneously having their image portrayed in some films and artwork in a degrading manner, and the instrument of torture on which they say they were tortured and died being celebrated!
Common sense, and the Islamic perspective, dictates that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was a prophet sent by God to guide humanity, not a god nor the son of God.
I want to clarify to my Christian friends that Muslims do not hate or belittle Christ. On the contrary, they believe in him, love him, and revere him as a noble prophet, one of God's greatest prophets. They believe in his miraculous birth from the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her), his miracles, and his exalted status with God.
Therefore, before judging my words or considering them an insult to Christ, I urge you to examine them calmly and objectively, to read the Gospels themselves, and to ask yourself some questions, setting aside inherited beliefs and approaching them with a logic that seeks truth, not victory:
First: How can the veneration of Christ coexist with the veneration of the cross? How can Christ be called the Son of God or God, while at the same time the cross, the instrument of torture and humiliation on which he is said to have been tortured, becomes a sacred symbol, venerated, displayed in churches and homes, and carried?
If the cross represents the instrument of torture on which Christ was humiliated, why has it itself become a symbol of sanctification?
Secondly: The Prayer at Gethsemane and the Problem of Will If Christ came to be crucified and die for the salvation of the world, why do the Gospels describe him, in the Prayer at Gethsemane, pleading with God to take this cup from him and deliver him from this suffering?
If there is a will with which Christ pleads and asks that the cup be taken from him, and in contrast, a divine will to which he submits and accepts to carry out, how do we reconcile this with the assertion that Christ is God?
And if it is said that this is an expression of his human nature, the question remains: Why is there a human will in Christ that asks for one thing, and a divine will to which the decision of something else is attributed? How does this distinction in will reconcile with the doctrine of Christ's divinity?
More importantly: To whom was Christ praying, pleading, and asking for salvation? Whom was he calling upon and from whom was he seeking help?
Isn't it more natural and logical for the one calling to be a servant of God, and the one being called upon to be God?
Third: How can the killing of an innocent person become the path to salvation?
If Christ was innocent, how could it be just for him to be tortured, humiliated, and killed for the sins of others that he did not commit?
How can it be just for an innocent person to be punished instead of the guilty one?
Even more significant is the moral paradox: If killing Christ was a crime, how could this same crime become the essential and necessary means of achieving salvation?
How can it be morally sound for the greatest crime—the killing of an innocent person, according to Christian belief—to be the very path without which salvation cannot be attained?
Can the same crime be both a crime deserving of punishment and a necessary means of achieving mercy and salvation? And where does the responsibility of the criminal lie if what he did—according to this view—is part of the plan of redemption?
Fourth: Where is the justice in the innocent being humiliated for the guilty?
If Christ is innocent, why does he bear the punishment for the sins of others?
If someone sins today, is it just for an innocent person to be arrested, tortured, and killed in his place?
Does killing the innocent become just simply because the guilty will then receive forgiveness?
If divine justice is perfect and absolute, how can transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent be just?
Fifth: The Problem of Original Sin and the Transfer of Guilt According to traditional Christian doctrine, all of humanity is bound to original sin because of Adam's sin.
Here, reason poses a simple question: How does absolute divine justice reconcile with the transfer of the consequences of sin and punishment to billions of people who did not commit the sin themselves and had no choice in its occurrence? If a person is not morally or legally responsible for a crime they did not commit, why should Adam's sin be the reason for placing all of humanity under the rule of sin?
Then why should another innocent person bear the punishment in their place?
To apply this to our daily lives: If someone's ancestor committed a crime hundreds of years ago, is it just that all their descendants should be born legally guilty because of that crime?
And is it just that an innocent person should then be killed so that these descendants can be spared punishment?
If we reject this as an injustice to humanity, how can we attribute the same image to a just and wise God?
Sixth: What about the Romans who tortured and crucified Christ?
If crucifixion was part of the plan of redemption, what is the position of those who tortured, humiliated, and crucified Christ?
Are they punished for killing an innocent person?
Or are they forgiven because, unknowingly, they carried out what was necessary to fulfill the plan of redemption? If they are to be punished, how can they have contributed to the fulfillment of God's plan?
And if they are to be forgiven, where is the just reckoning for this crime?
Furthermore, if the crime of killing Christ requires atonement, do we need another redemption to atone for the crime of his crucifixion?
And if the first redemption was sufficient, why is the perpetrator being punished at all for carrying out what was—according to this view—part of the plan of salvation?
Here arises a circle of questions that cannot be bypassed simply by saying, "God willed it," because the fundamental question is: How does this align with justice and wisdom?
Seventh: How can justice be served by the oppressor?
How can the criminal be the one to carry out the punishment on an innocent person, and then the criminal's own crime become part of the means of achieving salvation?
If a criminal wanted to kill an innocent person, and we were told that killing this innocent person was necessary to achieve a greater goal, would the criminal then become a legitimate instrument of justice?
Of course not.
The criminal remains responsible for his crime, and the innocent does not become guilty simply because his death achieved a certain result.
How can we attribute to the Wise God a system that makes the punishment of the innocent the path to the forgiveness of the guilty?
Eighth: What about the apostles and the early believers?
If the crucifixion of Christ alone atoned for the sins of humanity and achieved salvation, why did the apostles and early believers suffer afterward, and why were some of them tortured and killed for their faith?
If redemption was already accomplished and complete, what was the need for all this suffering and persecution afterward? If pain and death can be part of the path to salvation, why can't humanity's salvation come without the killing of the innocent?
Ninth: Was it Christ who was crucified?
The Islamic belief is clear:
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them.” (Quran 2:17) According to the Quran, Jesus, peace be upon him, was neither killed nor crucified. Rather, the matter was made to appear so to the people, and God raised His prophet to Himself and saved him from this oppression and injustice.
As for identifying the person who was made to appear so to them as Judas Iscariot specifically, this is not an explicit Quranic text, but rather a statement found in some narrations and commentaries. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute it to the Quran as a definitive fact.
Here, the Islamic perspective becomes more consistent with God's justice: An innocent prophet sent by God to guide his people, whose enemies tried to kill him, but God saved him and raised him to Himself. God did not make the killing of His innocent prophet a condition for the forgiveness of the sins of the rest of humanity.
Tenth: Does saving the prophet contradict God's power?
If Christ was an innocent prophet sent by God, why is it impossible for God to save him from the hands of the oppressors, as He saved other prophets?
The God who supported Jesus with miracles, and who created him without a father, is certainly capable of saving him from being killed.
So why is the only solution for the salvation of humanity to leave the innocent prophet to be humiliated, tortured, and killed?
Isn't saving the innocent from the oppressors closer to justice and wisdom?
Eleventh: Where is Christ's original message?
I am not saying that every Christian today knows he is wrong, nor that every Christian is bad or doesn't seek the truth.
But the question worth exploring is: Is everything Christians believe today truly what Christ himself taught?
How did the doctrine shift from the message of a prophet calling to God to the doctrines of Christ's divinity, incarnation, redemption, and the Trinity? Therefore, I call for a study of the history and development of Christian doctrine, the councils, early Christian schisms, and the texts and manuscripts, rather than simply relying on what we have inherited.
Indeed, there are ancient historical and doctrinal disagreements among Christian groups regarding the nature of Christ and his teachings. Therefore, research into "original Christianity" is a subject worthy of serious study.
Twelfth: What about the decline of religion in some Western societies?
It is noticeable in some Western societies that religious practice is declining, and some churches are closing or being repurposed for entertainment or commercial use.
I am not suggesting that all of this is a single conspiracy, nor that every closed church has been converted into a nightclub or bar; such a generalization is inaccurate.
But the question that deserves reflection is: Why have large numbers of people in some Western societies turned away from religion?
Is the reason merely a weakness in religion, or are there multiple philosophical, cultural, social, and historical factors that have led to this?
Thirteenth: What about priests and religious figures who have converted to Islam?
There are people from Christian backgrounds, including some who were clergy, who embraced Islam after research and study. This is because Islam is the most widespread and prevalent religion globally, despite being targeted by various forces.
The important thing is for you to research the doctrine, texts, and history yourself, and then judge with your intellect and conscience.
Therefore, I won't tell you: "Believe me because I'm Muslim."
Instead, I say:
Investigate for yourself.
Read the Gospels.
Read the Quran.
Read what Jesus said about himself, what he said about God, to whom he prayed, whom he called upon, and what message he brought.
Explore the history and development of the Christian faith.
Investigate the meaning of redemption and original sin, the relationship between guilt and punishment, the meaning of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane, and the issue of the crucifixion itself.
Then ask yourself, setting aside societal and inherited pressures:
Is Jesus truly God, or is he God's messenger? To whom did he call upon and pray?
Was the crucifixion a divine act of redemption, or was it an attempt by humans to kill an innocent prophet, from whom God saved him? Is it conceivable that someone should be held accountable for a sin they didn't commit, and that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty?
Does all of this align with absolute divine justice?
This isn't meant to be hateful towards you or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, but rather advice from someone who wishes you salvation.
Think about it for yourself, investigate for yourselves, and don't blindly follow me or anyone else.
The truth has nothing to fear from inquiry.
A person shouldn't inherit their beliefs simply because they were born into them.
Ultimately, every person will stand before God alone.
No one will be held accountable for you on the Day of Judgment.
It is a very good movie; I watched it twice to learn English and get to know their culture. I love the American people, which is why I say: learn English.
Agreed with everyone I never been so confused in my life…I think I rather watch my 7 year old nephew invent a story line and I'm sure I'd understand it better.
what a weird movie
این فیلم بیشتر به بحران نوجوانی پرداخت (سیزده تاهفده سالگی)زمانی که تازه قرار است شخصیت هر فرد شکل بگیرد و از بکابوس های کودکی به آرزوهای جوانی برسد
I don't understand how someone can be worshipped while simultaneously having their image portrayed in some films and artwork in a degrading manner, and the instrument of torture on which they say they were tortured and died being celebrated!
Common sense, and the Islamic perspective, dictates that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was a prophet sent by God to guide humanity, not a god nor the son of God.
I want to clarify to my Christian friends that Muslims do not hate or belittle Christ. On the contrary, they believe in him, love him, and revere him as a noble prophet, one of God's greatest prophets. They believe in his miraculous birth from the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her), his miracles, and his exalted status with God.
Therefore, before judging my words or considering them an insult to Christ, I urge you to examine them calmly and objectively, to read the Gospels themselves, and to ask yourself some questions, setting aside inherited beliefs and approaching them with a logic that seeks truth, not victory:
First: How can the veneration of Christ coexist with the veneration of the cross? How can Christ be called the Son of God or God, while at the same time the cross, the instrument of torture and humiliation on which he is said to have been tortured, becomes a sacred symbol, venerated, displayed in churches and homes, and carried?
If the cross represents the instrument of torture on which Christ was humiliated, why has it itself become a symbol of sanctification?
Secondly: The Prayer at Gethsemane and the Problem of Will
If Christ came to be crucified and die for the salvation of the world, why do the Gospels describe him, in the Prayer at Gethsemane, pleading with God to take this cup from him and deliver him from this suffering?
If there is a will with which Christ pleads and asks that the cup be taken from him, and in contrast, a divine will to which he submits and accepts to carry out, how do we reconcile this with the assertion that Christ is God?
And if it is said that this is an expression of his human nature, the question remains: Why is there a human will in Christ that asks for one thing, and a divine will to which the decision of something else is attributed? How does this distinction in will reconcile with the doctrine of Christ's divinity?
More importantly: To whom was Christ praying, pleading, and asking for salvation? Whom was he calling upon and from whom was he seeking help?
Isn't it more natural and logical for the one calling to be a servant of God, and the one being called upon to be God?
Third: How can the killing of an innocent person become the path to salvation?
If Christ was innocent, how could it be just for him to be tortured, humiliated, and killed for the sins of others that he did not commit?
How can it be just for an innocent person to be punished instead of the guilty one?
Even more significant is the moral paradox:
If killing Christ was a crime, how could this same crime become the essential and necessary means of achieving salvation?
How can it be morally sound for the greatest crime—the killing of an innocent person, according to Christian belief—to be the very path without which salvation cannot be attained?
Can the same crime be both a crime deserving of punishment and a necessary means of achieving mercy and salvation? And where does the responsibility of the criminal lie if what he did—according to this view—is part of the plan of redemption?
Fourth: Where is the justice in the innocent being humiliated for the guilty?
If Christ is innocent, why does he bear the punishment for the sins of others?
If someone sins today, is it just for an innocent person to be arrested, tortured, and killed in his place?
Does killing the innocent become just simply because the guilty will then receive forgiveness?
If divine justice is perfect and absolute, how can transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent be just?
Fifth: The Problem of Original Sin and the Transfer of Guilt
According to traditional Christian doctrine, all of humanity is bound to original sin because of Adam's sin.
Here, reason poses a simple question:
How does absolute divine justice reconcile with the transfer of the consequences of sin and punishment to billions of people who did not commit the sin themselves and had no choice in its occurrence? If a person is not morally or legally responsible for a crime they did not commit, why should Adam's sin be the reason for placing all of humanity under the rule of sin?
Then why should another innocent person bear the punishment in their place?
To apply this to our daily lives:
If someone's ancestor committed a crime hundreds of years ago, is it just that all their descendants should be born legally guilty because of that crime?
And is it just that an innocent person should then be killed so that these descendants can be spared punishment?
If we reject this as an injustice to humanity, how can we attribute the same image to a just and wise God?
Sixth: What about the Romans who tortured and crucified Christ?
If crucifixion was part of the plan of redemption, what is the position of those who tortured, humiliated, and crucified Christ?
Are they punished for killing an innocent person?
Or are they forgiven because, unknowingly, they carried out what was necessary to fulfill the plan of redemption? If they are to be punished, how can they have contributed to the fulfillment of God's plan?
And if they are to be forgiven, where is the just reckoning for this crime?
Furthermore, if the crime of killing Christ requires atonement, do we need another redemption to atone for the crime of his crucifixion?
And if the first redemption was sufficient, why is the perpetrator being punished at all for carrying out what was—according to this view—part of the plan of salvation?
Here arises a circle of questions that cannot be bypassed simply by saying, "God willed it," because the fundamental question is: How does this align with justice and wisdom?
Seventh: How can justice be served by the oppressor?
How can the criminal be the one to carry out the punishment on an innocent person, and then the criminal's own crime become part of the means of achieving salvation?
If a criminal wanted to kill an innocent person, and we were told that killing this innocent person was necessary to achieve a greater goal, would the criminal then become a legitimate instrument of justice?
Of course not.
The criminal remains responsible for his crime, and the innocent does not become guilty simply because his death achieved a certain result.
How can we attribute to the Wise God a system that makes the punishment of the innocent the path to the forgiveness of the guilty?
Eighth: What about the apostles and the early believers?
If the crucifixion of Christ alone atoned for the sins of humanity and achieved salvation, why did the apostles and early believers suffer afterward, and why were some of them tortured and killed for their faith?
If redemption was already accomplished and complete, what was the need for all this suffering and persecution afterward? If pain and death can be part of the path to salvation, why can't humanity's salvation come without the killing of the innocent?
Ninth: Was it Christ who was crucified?
The Islamic belief is clear:
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them.” (Quran 2:17) According to the Quran, Jesus, peace be upon him, was neither killed nor crucified. Rather, the matter was made to appear so to the people, and God raised His prophet to Himself and saved him from this oppression and injustice.
As for identifying the person who was made to appear so to them as Judas Iscariot specifically, this is not an explicit Quranic text, but rather a statement found in some narrations and commentaries. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute it to the Quran as a definitive fact.
Here, the Islamic perspective becomes more consistent with God's justice: An innocent prophet sent by God to guide his people, whose enemies tried to kill him, but God saved him and raised him to Himself. God did not make the killing of His innocent prophet a condition for the forgiveness of the sins of the rest of humanity.
Tenth: Does saving the prophet contradict God's power?
If Christ was an innocent prophet sent by God, why is it impossible for God to save him from the hands of the oppressors, as He saved other prophets?
The God who supported Jesus with miracles, and who created him without a father, is certainly capable of saving him from being killed.
So why is the only solution for the salvation of humanity to leave the innocent prophet to be humiliated, tortured, and killed?
Isn't saving the innocent from the oppressors closer to justice and wisdom?
Eleventh: Where is Christ's original message?
I am not saying that every Christian today knows he is wrong, nor that every Christian is bad or doesn't seek the truth.
But the question worth exploring is:
Is everything Christians believe today truly what Christ himself taught?
How did the doctrine shift from the message of a prophet calling to God to the doctrines of Christ's divinity, incarnation, redemption, and the Trinity? Therefore, I call for a study of the history and development of Christian doctrine, the councils, early Christian schisms, and the texts and manuscripts, rather than simply relying on what we have inherited.
Indeed, there are ancient historical and doctrinal disagreements among Christian groups regarding the nature of Christ and his teachings. Therefore, research into "original Christianity" is a subject worthy of serious study.
Twelfth: What about the decline of religion in some Western societies?
It is noticeable in some Western societies that religious practice is declining, and some churches are closing or being repurposed for entertainment or commercial use.
I am not suggesting that all of this is a single conspiracy, nor that every closed church has been converted into a nightclub or bar; such a generalization is inaccurate.
But the question that deserves reflection is: Why have large numbers of people in some Western societies turned away from religion?
Is the reason merely a weakness in religion, or are there multiple philosophical, cultural, social, and historical factors that have led to this?
Thirteenth: What about priests and religious figures who have converted to Islam?
There are people from Christian backgrounds, including some who were clergy, who embraced Islam after research and study. This is because Islam is the most widespread and prevalent religion globally, despite being targeted by various forces.
The important thing is for you to research the doctrine, texts, and history yourself, and then judge with your intellect and conscience.
Therefore, I won't tell you: "Believe me because I'm Muslim."
Instead, I say:
Investigate for yourself.
Read the Gospels.
Read the Quran.
Read what Jesus said about himself, what he said about God, to whom he prayed, whom he called upon, and what message he brought.
Explore the history and development of the Christian faith.
Investigate the meaning of redemption and original sin, the relationship between guilt and punishment, the meaning of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane, and the issue of the crucifixion itself.
Then ask yourself, setting aside societal and inherited pressures:
Is Jesus truly God, or is he God's messenger? To whom did he call upon and pray?
Was the crucifixion a divine act of redemption, or was it an attempt by humans to kill an innocent prophet, from whom God saved him? Is it conceivable that someone should be held accountable for a sin they didn't commit, and that the innocent should be punished instead of the guilty?
Does all of this align with absolute divine justice?
This isn't meant to be hateful towards you or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, but rather advice from someone who wishes you salvation.
Think about it for yourself, investigate for yourselves, and don't blindly follow me or anyone else.
The truth has nothing to fear from inquiry.
A person shouldn't inherit their beliefs simply because they were born into them.
Ultimately, every person will stand before God alone.
No one will be held accountable for you on the Day of Judgment.
I have never seen such blasphemy
Bro picked the wrong one ☠️ ☠️
No nice
Ye tha kya 😂😂😂
Bunch gaypunks.
❤❤❤😮❤😮❤😮❤😮❤
وين الترجمة العربي.
1:16:55 American shooting 😂
Fight Club but for kids.
Two what to kill him photo girl Kiss the Boy and the wind not i want to pusieron internet rocket ship
Hmm 80 percentage of the movie
It is a very good movie; I watched it twice to learn English and get to know their culture. I love the American people, which is why I say: learn English.
Agreed with everyone I never been so confused in my life…I think I rather watch my 7 year old nephew invent a story line and I'm sure I'd understand it better.
Sorry I tried so hard to give this movie a chance but it just wasn't happening, if there was a dumbest movie award….yeah
Gay
One messed up movie about messed up people – was expecting Robin to be a girl… and revealed…. so wrong..
So sweettttt 32:37
Okay that was lowkey bad ngl 42:24
OK thanks I'll get it back to
Wow he clocked it at the end
It there a part two?
He is gay
So confusing but for what ever reason I ship Carter and Robert
เขาเป็นผู้หญิง ที่แอบชอบผู้ชายคนนั้น แต่เขานิสัยไม่ดี จึงตัดขาดความสำพันธุ์
What is the name of the movie?
Left me confused,, but like,, I'm not sure if I liked the movie or not…. I'm so confused I don't even know if I'm satisfied or not.. 😭😭😭😭
It's confusing….but i like the characters
So did Robin kill himself or not?
I don't understand this story it really seems strange
I'm confused but also it would be really cool if I could get a part 2 I love it but the end part is confusing and I want to know what happens next
At 11:54 and on the far left on the on board why does it say fingering. Like ehh yo
is he gay?