greetings hamza, it's nice that you could join us. given that the other thread i participated in was closed and no reason given for the closure, i didn't think that we'd be involved in another debate so soon; and yet here we are. i'm tired at the moment so this will be quite short. please deal with the argument i have presented instead of amassing a mass of emotionism and loaded words for a rebuttal. in fact, there is almost no argument in the above except that you're basically saying that your idea of forgiveness sounds better. we're not arguing about what sounds better but rather what is better. if you want to prove your point the first thing you have to start attacking is the concept of whether sin is indeed a debt. once you even admit this position then you have lost all grounds for criticizing the christian doctrine so could we please begin with this?
Greetings Sol,
My first post in this thread was an introducion to the flawed concept of the blood atonement of sin to which i will certainly be going into more deail about so ensure that yo are wide awake when replying.
Obviously you as would imply that there is no argument offered yet you offer NOTHING at all to refute a single statement i wrote. Rather than dodge the statements why do you not refute them if you can?
It is not only that the Islamic concept of sin sounds better but cerainly it is a fact that it is consistant with the attributes of God and that of a merciful Lord and it is also consitant to what is in our scriptures as is ALL of the fundamental beliefs of Islam which is certainly NOT the case with the fundamental beliefs of Christianity including that of the blood atonement of sin.
The one great problem of the original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. These innate, God-given convictions affirm to us irresistibly that it is IMPOSSIBLE to hold a man responsible for a deed that he did not commit and that was committed thousands of years before he was born and came into existence. So the theologians who defend the theory of original sin have the impossible task of justifying God for doing what their own conscience affirms he could not be just in doing.
The theologians who work so hard to resolve this problem still find it impossible to escape their God-given convictions that the doctrine of original sin does, in fact, involve God in a monstrous INJUSTICE.
Charles Hodge both recognizes this injustice and evades it in the same sentence:
It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justice and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born, and a benevolent rational being is good in the universal judgment of men, whether he was so created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment.
This, then how to reconcile the justice and goodness of God with the doctrine of original sin is the great, omnipresent problem of original sin, a problem that remains to haunt the advocate of original sin even after he has hurriedly dismissed it.
Sheldon also calls attention to the problem of the injustice of God involved in the doctrine of original sin.
He says:
The same God whose penetrating glance burns away every artifice with which a man may enwrap himself, and reaches at once to the naked reality, is represented as swathing His judgment with a gigantic artifice, in that He holds countless millions guilty of a trespass which He knows was committed before their personal existence, and which they could no more prevent than they could hinder the fiat of creation. If this is justice, then justice is a word of unknown meaning.
Strong admits quite frankly that he is not completely satisfied with the theories of original sin.
He says:
We must grant that no one, even of these later theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show that the last of them the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam's natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are naturally and organically one explains the largest number of facts, is least open to objections, and is most accordant with Scripture.
The fact is that the irresistible convictions of justice in the hearts of all men REJECT the teachings of the doctrine of original sin.
Let us look at If
Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," means born with a sinful nature and under the wrath of God because of that nature which the advocates of the doctrine of original sin teach then it follows that EVERY child who dies in infancy goes to hell where he must forever suffer the awful punishment and wrath of God.
So this text itself proves
THAT BABIES WHO DIE GO TO HELL where they will suffer God's wrath in never-ending punishment.
What a just and kind God you believe in Sol.
If babies really are born
"by nature the children of wrath," then they must go to hell if they die in such a state.
Let us also look at
Psalm 51:5,
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," means that even unborn children in their mother's womb are sinners, then it follows that all the multiplied millions of children who have been aborted, along with all stillbirths,
ARE IN HELL where they will suffer its torments throughout all eternity for "their part" in the sin of Adam.
Clearly the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust and in the back of your mind there is no doubt that you know this and acknowledge it but instead would rather remain blind to it.
