The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Sol Invictus]

i'm just going to dismiss the above altogether. go back to my posts and then start quoting from my actual argument. furthermore, whatever gripe you may have with the doctrine of original sin really doesn't concern me and if you feel that a discussion of original sin is pertinent to this thread prove it. once again, i really don't want to debate things that aren't expressly related to my post at all.

can somebody also correct hamza's incorrect use of ephesians 2:3 and how the text itself clearly says that they were children of wrath because of the sins that they were actually committing? here is the passage with its actual context:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. --- ephesians 2:1-3 KJV

the above clearly is speaking about the sins that the individual has actually committed. please stop trying to use the bible to prove your failing position. but seriously, can somebody pick up where i left off as it regards this matter? i really don't want to get side-tracked here.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

i'm just going to dismiss the above altogether. go back to my posts and then start quoting from my actual argument. furthermore, whatever gripe you may have with the doctrine of original sin really doesn't concern me and if you feel that a discussion of original sin is pertinent to this thread prove it. once again, i really don't want to debate things that aren't expressly related to my post at all.

can somebody also correct hamza's incorrect use of ephesians 2:3 and how the text itself clearly says that they were children of wrath because of the sins that they were actually committing? here is the passage with its actual context:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. --- ephesians 2:1-3 KJV

the above clearly is speaking about the sins that the individual has actually committed. please stop trying to use the bible to prove your failing position. but seriously, can somebody pick up where i left off as it regards this matter? i really don't want to get side-tracked here.

Sol if your tired as you have stated in your last post then we can speak tomorrow when i hope to get a better response to my posts.

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) Let us also look at the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the latter, ‘standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified’ (Luke 18. 13-14).

And yet again, there is his insistence that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy b ) ‘Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matthew 9.13).

( a ) forgiveness comes from the blood of christ: "the bible is quite clear that all our burdens were laid on him and contrary to what you imply, no act of changing the past would have to have occurred. if sin is a debt then whenever the debt is paid rests entirely on the individual to whom the debt is owed. if i sincerely believe that in a week from now, a family member will pay your debt to me then i certainly can wait until the next week to receive my payment. let us not forget that with god, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. but furthermore, throughout your entire post you simply ignore the concept of justice altogether. can you please show us how at all your conception of forgiveness squares with the notion of justice?"

clearly, the above is not at all in contradiction with what i have said. but once again we note that the bible clearly refutes what you are trying to say and that christ was very clear as it concerns his atoning blood.

( b ) hamza, i had already warned you about trying to use the bible to make your point. let's try again. christ is quoting from hosea 6:6 and the context of it is that god has just punished israel for her sins. what he is saying is that he is not filled with joy by punishing them. he truly does desire mercy and not sacrifice but that does not mean he will disregard punishing wrongs. once again you have been shown to be ignorant of the texts which you try to use.

So again we see you trying to decievingly misinterpret verses of the Qur'an to imply that which they do not. You were already exposed for doing that in the last thread and now you are trying to imply the verses talk about the people of noah being punished with the flood because of inheriting the sins of others when it is clear for all to see that the verses state that the polytheist brought the wrath of God and the punishment upon themselves for their own evil acts and they were destroyed because of their OWN sins NOT the sins of anyone else and the good were SAVED and that is why they were told embark upon the ark along with the other righteous people of Noah.

in what thread might this be? in the one where you could not show us where in the christian creeds mary was said to be divine? you mean the one that was suddenly closed with no reason whatsoever given? yes, that certainly does sound like the christian position was proven wrong. yes, the texts are quite clear that the flood was called because of teh polytheists and those who would drown would be those who had done wrong. the question then becomes why countless babies and children also died in the flood if there was no such thing as inheritence of guilt within islam. you merely deny my argument but don't actually deal with it.

once more, this discussion does not have to do with my actual post. can you start dealing with my first two posts seeing as this is what this thread is about?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol if your tired as you have stated in your last post then we can speak tomorrow when i hope to get a better response to my posts.

greetings, the responses were quite appropriate but if you mean to say that there are points in which you'd like me to be more detailed then certainly i can do so for you. so yes, i suppose that this evening or tomorrow will be alright. so, until then.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

( a ) forgiveness comes from the blood of christ: "the bible is quite clear that all our burdens were laid on him and contrary to what you imply, no act of changing the past would have to have occurred. if sin is a debt then whenever the debt is paid rests entirely on the individual to whom the debt is owed. if i sincerely believe that in a week from now, a family member will pay your debt to me then i certainly can wait until the next week to receive my payment. let us not forget that with god, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. but furthermore, throughout your entire post you simply ignore the concept of justice altogether. can you please show us how at all your conception of forgiveness squares with the notion of justice?"

clearly, the above is not at all in contradiction with what i have said. but once again we note that the bible clearly refutes what you are trying to say and that christ was very clear as it concerns his atoning blood.

It is clear that like many other fundamental Christian beliefs such as the trinity and the Theotokas , the doctrine of the Inherited Sin also finds absolutley NO support in the words of Jesus or of the prophets who had come before him. They taught that every man was accountable for his own actions and that the children will NOT be punished for the sin of their father. For instance, it is written in the Book of prophet Jeremiah:

"In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Jeremiah, 31:29-30.

The prophet Ezekiel also rejected the dogma of the Original Sin in almost the same words:

"The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, what mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with garment, he that hath not given forth on usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in My Statutes, and hath kept My Judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God... The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father: neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My Statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." Ezekiel, is; 1-9, 20-21

That Jesus himself regarded children as innocent and pure, and not as born in sin, which is contrary to the Christian teaching that a unborn baby or any baby who dies in their infancy can BURN IN HELL FOREVER. Jesus said regarding children:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein"

Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth contrary to Christian teachings.

Sin, it says, is NOT inherited and certainly does not require God to lower himself so as to come to earth and slaughter himself in the hands of his own creations just to abolish the sins of his own creations. But clearly sin is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should NOT do and not doing what he should do.

It would be the height of injustice to condemn the ENTIRE human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents of mankind.

Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie ONLY on the person who has committed it, and NOT on his children.

Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.

How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are DOOMED TO BURN ETERNALLY IN THE FIRE OF HELL.

in what thread might this be? in the one where you could not show us where in the christian creeds mary was said to be divine? you mean the one that was suddenly closed with no reason whatsoever given? yes, that certainly does sound like the christian position was proven wrong. yes, the texts are quite clear that the flood was called because of teh polytheists and those who would drown would be those who had done wrong. the question then becomes why countless babies and children also died in the flood if there was no such thing as inheritence of guilt within islam. you merely deny my argument but don't actually deal with it.

The one where all of your gross errors were exposed and refuted. The one where i showed you OVERWHELMING evidence of the Christian belief in the divinity of Mary and the one in which you failed everytime to prove a single point you raised just like you are failing now to prove even one of your points. Yes by your own words it was clearly establised for all to see that your position in being a Christian was proven WRONG.

Now going back to this thread you imply that countles babies would have died in the flood. I ask you to provide evidence where in the Qur'an does it state that countless babies died because of the sin they inherited because of the polytheists? I await your answer.......

I am also still waiting for you to prove to us of the belief of blood atonement of sin using the teachings of Jesus which you have still failed to do and in which i have already provided you with overwhelming evidence that the Bible, the Christianity deity and Jesus clearly teaches otherwise.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Sol, what kind of a coward are you proclaiming triumph where I had to duck out entirely for medical reasons and then openly sidestepping the original sin issue when it's utterly smashed into oblivion by Hamza, saying it's "not relevant"? As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant! You're like a boxer who, minutes after bragging about winning a fight by forfeit because the other guy was in the emergency room during the scheduled time after accidentally crushing his hands beneath his own ladder, says in response to proof of a flaw in his very technique and conception of how the sport of boxing should be practiced, "That doesn't matter, I'm still the best in the business!" Do you think you're convincing anyone of anything this way?

 

[Woodrow]

so let's please not claim that islam does not teach the inheritance of sin.

Peace Sol,

Like you I also am hard pressed for time at the moment. Please excuse my brevity. I did truncate your post to just the specific statement I am addressing at this moment. I did hope to have time to address the entire 59 ayyat that speak of Nuh(Noah) (Pbuh) along with the 28 ayyats of surah 71. But decided that would br both redundant and time consuming.

I am not qualified to give Tafsir about the Quran. But from what I read the Flood was sent as a punishment to the polytheists among the people of Nuh(Noah)(Pbuh). It does not seem to be a worldwide deluge that destroyed all life with a few exceptions. It was more in line with the destruction of the evil ones among the People of Lut(Lot)(Pbuh) If the whole world was destroyed, I can not say with certainty. but I can say the Quran only mentions the wrong doers among the People of Nuh(PBUH) as being destroyed.

At no point in any of the various destruction that Allaah(swt) sent to wrong doers, can I find any reference that any innocents were killed. Those destroyed brought upon the destruction by refusing to heed the warnings. They were responsible for their own death, not from anything they inherited.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol, what kind of a coward are you proclaiming triumph where I had to duck out entirely for medical reasons and then openly sidestepping the original sin issue when it's utterly smashed into oblivion by Hamza, saying it's "not relevant"? As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant! You're like a boxer who, minutes after bragging about winning a fight by forfeit because the other guy was in the emergency room during the scheduled time after accidentally crushing his hands beneath his own ladder, says in response to proof of a flaw in his very technique and conception of how the sport of boxing should be practiced, "That doesn't matter, I'm still the best in the business!" Do you think you're convincing anyone of anything this way?

greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?

I am not qualified to give Tafsir about the Quran. But from what I read the Flood was sent as a punishment to the polytheists among the people of Nuh(Noah)(Pbuh). It does not seem to be a worldwide deluge that destroyed all life with a few exceptions. It was more in line with the destruction of the evil ones among the People of Lut(Lot)(Pbuh) If the whole world was destroyed, I can not say with certainty. but I can say the Quran only mentions the wrong doers among the People of Nuh(PBUH) as being destroyed.

At no point in any of the various destruction that Allaah(swt) sent to wrong doers, can I find any reference that any innocents were killed. Those destroyed brought upon the destruction by refusing to heed the warnings. They were responsible for their own death, not from anything they inherited.

greetings woodrow, it is always a pleasure. it must be said that whether or not the flood was global according to islam would not at all hurt my position (i myself would have to go verify this point as far as islamic commentary is concerned). that said, here is why i believe your point not to be in keeping with the flood narrative. you claim that there is no basis to believe that innocent children drowned in the flood but can this at all be true? as i recall, islamic tradition enumerates the number of people who had been saved and if all babies and those children too young to have actually willfully engaged in polytheism were in fact spared, then islamic tradition would have mentioned this. your argument is not unlike saying that seeing as the qur'an doesn't specifically mention that these drowned individuals were clothed, we cannot assume that they weren't running around naked. you see where i'm getting with this? if a flood was called and adults themselves were unable to save their own lives, then we should not suppose that the little children would be able to save their own lives unless this was explicitly mentioned. it's only logical and as such my argument still stands.

I am also still waiting for you to prove to us of the belief of blood atonement of sin using the teachings of Jesus which you have still failed to do and in which i have already provided you with overwhelming evidence that the Bible, the Christianity deity and Jesus clearly teaches otherwise.

i thought of quoting your entire post but then thought better of it. now as it regards the audience, look carefully for this will be a teaching moment. in the above it is claimed that that both christ and the bible do not teach concerning the blood atonement for forgiveness of sins. but wait a minute, did i not just quote christ's explicit words to show that he claimed that he was going to die for the sins of the world? hmm, let's see if i understand this correctly. so when christ says the following:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." --- Mark 10:45 NIV

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV

we are somehow to suppose that what he actually meant was that he wasn't teaching that he would atone for our sins with his own blood. it would seem that the problem here isn't that the christian can't authenticate their doctrine from the bible but rather that the muslim is fully prepared to ignore those very portions of the bible which clearly contradict him. i'll be perfectly clear: that is dishonest and as it regards this practise, you have answered the question of your character for all of us.

Now going back to this thread you imply that countles babies would have died in the flood. I ask you to provide evidence where in the Qur'an does it state that countless babies died because of the sin they inherited because of the polytheists? I await your answer.......

in terms of logic, there is much to be desired. if the above were a proper argument then i could very ask you to tell me where it is said that noah was wearing clothes when he was preaching to the polytheists. in the absence of any such reference are we then to assume that he was going about preaching the words of god while completely naked? see how ridiculous an objection founded on such a premise becomes? the fact is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the children and adults did not drown as well for if they hadn't then the muslim deity would have informed us of this (lest we think that punished them for the sins of the polytheists---oh...wait).

as far as your jeremiah and ezekiel citation go, the fact of the matter is that the jews were claiming that their particular punishment was not due to any of their sins but to the sins of their fathers. in both instances god was informing them that they were being punished for their sins. is it that strange to suppose that god can punish the individual for his particular sin (even if original sin is posited a priori)? clearly it isn't. hamza, you once again talk concerning original sin and seeing as i don't want to be involved in debates which have no bearing on my argument at all. i could certainly defend the doctrine of original sin but it is not relevant to my argument. none of my points are based on this but if you think that they are, can you please start quoting from my post and showing how this is at all the case? once again: can we now begin to actually quote my posts which actually have to do with this thread? please start trying to salvage yahya's argument by quoting from my posts and showing how his words at all refuted me (of course you are certainly welcome to try to pick them apart yourselves).

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

i thought of quoting your entire post but then thought better of it. now as it regards the audience, look carefully for this will be a teaching moment. in the above it is claimed that that both christ and the bible do not teach concerning the blood atonement for forgiveness of sins. but wait a minute, did i not just quote christ's explicit words to show that he claimed that he was going to die for the sins of the world? hmm, let's see if i understand this correctly. so when christ says the following:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." --- Mark 10:45 NIV

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV

Greetings again Sol,

There are three points i would like to touch upon here:

Firstly, it is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did NOT wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36)

Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see NO connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:

"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part" (22:37)

The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:

"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice 'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does NOT mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned NOTHING about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

So the three points are that the dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1) man is not born in sin. (2) God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3) the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do NOT harm God, but ourselves.

The stain of sin on our souls CAN be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God, his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.

The truth is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:

(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen) (The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)

(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load) (17:15)

Clearly you are trying to divert away from this topic because you KNOW that the blood atonement is a concept which is consistant with nor is it backed up by ANY of the teachings of Jesus or the Christian deity.

All you have done is quote a verse out of context where it does not mention anything about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the inherited sin of mankind to be eradicated, whereas i have provided you with overwhelming evidence from your own Bible that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT a teaching that was consistant with or taught by ANY prophet or the Bible but clearly it was in fact created after Jesus as was the concept of the trinity and the Theotokas.

in terms of logic, there is much to be desired. if the above were a proper argument then i could very ask you to tell me where it is said that noah was wearing clothes when he was preaching to the polytheists. in the absence of any such reference are we then to assume that he was going about preaching the words of god while completely naked? see how ridiculous an objection founded on such a premise becomes? the fact is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the children and adults did not drown as well for if they hadn't then the muslim deity would have informed us of this (lest we think that punished them for the sins of the polytheists---oh...wait).

You are correct that in terms of logic your argument that the verse implies that children died because of the inheritance of others has NO logic whatsoever nor have you any argument at all.

I have already asked you to provide evidence of where in the Qur'an does God state that a person was killed due to inheriting the sin of another person and you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence at all.

The Qur'an is clear that we are ALL absolutely responsible for ONLY our own sins, which are incurred by our direct acts. Others cannot transfer their sins to us, in order to have theirs erased or even reduced. Nor can we inherit sins from our relatives or our ancestors. No One will have to bear the Sins of Another!

You still have not answered my question Sol According to the concept of blood atonement of sin why are babies and unborn babies who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

You have also failed once again to provide ANY evidence to back up your position regarding the teaching of the atonement of sin and have been overwhelmed by evidence proving the fact that the teaching of the atonement of sin was NEVER taught by ANY prophet nor was it ever taught by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible.

There is NO doubt that 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.



Clearly there is a fundamental problem with this troubling concept and one which you clearly would like to divert away from.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Greetings again Sol,

There are three points i would like to touch upon here:

Firstly, it is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did NOT wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36)

Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see NO connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:

"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part" (22:37)

The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:

"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice 'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does NOT mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned NOTHING about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

So the three points are that the dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1) man is not born in sin. (2) God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3) the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do NOT harm God, but ourselves.

The stain of sin on our souls CAN be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God, his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.

The truth is that Jesus did NOT die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:

(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen) (The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)

(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load) (17:15)

Clearly you are trying to divert away from this topic because you KNOW that the blood atonement is a concept which is consistant with nor is it backed up by ANY of the teachings of Jesus or the Christian deity.

All you have done is quote a verse out of context where it does not mention anything about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the inherited sin of mankind to be eradicated, whereas i have provided you with overwhelming evidence from your own Bible that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT a teaching that was consistant with or taught by ANY prophet or the Bible but clearly it was in fact created after Jesus as was the concept of the trinity and the Theotokas.




You are correct that in terms of logic your argument that the verse implies that children died because of the inheritance of others has NO logic whatsoever nor have you any argument at all.

I have already asked you to provide evidence of where in the Qur'an does God state that a person was killed due to inheriting the sin of another person and you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence at all.

The Qur'an is clear that we are ALL absolutely responsible for ONLY our own sins, which are incurred by our direct acts. Others cannot transfer their sins to us, in order to have theirs erased or even reduced. Nor can we inherit sins from our relatives or our ancestors. No One will have to bear the Sins of Another!

You still have not answered my question Sol According to the concept of blood atonement of sin why are babies and unborn babies who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

You have also failed once again to provide ANY evidence to back up your position regarding the teaching of the atonement of sin and have been overwhelmed by evidence proving the fact that the teaching of the atonement of sin was NEVER taught by ANY prophet nor was it ever taught by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible.

There is NO doubt that 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.



Clearly there is a fundamental problem with this troubling concept and one which you clearly would like to divert away from.

alright, so i have been wondering why exactly you have been unwilling to actually engage my actual argument and so i decided to do a quick google search and lo and behold, you haven't really been debating me in the first place. instead you were copying other people's articles almost word for word and passing them off as your own. you did not have the common decency to include them in quotes so that we'd know that the words were never yours in the first place and i have noticed this before. this certainly is not the first time. case in point:

http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=175&chapter=23

if we compare the above link with what you have in your post we'll see that you've just been copying and pasting other people's arguments word for word. this is why you could not actually deal with my actual posts because you have been unable to actual find a website which responds to the line of argument that i have presented. i'm really not going to bother discussing with an individual who repeatedly passes off other people's words as his own. hamza, our discussion here is done because you have repeatedly been unwilling to actually deal with those posts of mine which actually deal with the purpose of this thread. given that this discussion is way above your comprehension level you have simply been copying and pasting other people's words but seeing as they haven't come across a line of argument such as mine it now becomes quite clear why your statements never actually had to do with the posts of mine that this discussion should have been centered on. so i repeat, this little discussion is over hamza, yes i'll continue my discussion with woodrow, yes i'll continue my discussion with yahya but certainly not with you seeing as you have proven yourself unfit for such a discussion in the first place. that said, if your co-religionists actually believe that the words which you copied, pasted and passed off as your own are actually good arguments then they can certainly pick up these points in their discussion with me but you and i are certainly done here (unless of course you now wish to actually engage my actual posts and try to save yahya's failing argument now that you have been exposed in this manner).

another christian is certainly welcome to pick up where i left off debating whoever it is that actually wrote the words contained in hamza's post.

now to the other participants (for what must seem like the hundredth time to me): can we actually begin quoting from my rebuttal to yahya's argument and show how my points were at all wrong? why is it that there seems to be such an aversion towards simply doing so?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Greetingts Sol,

Let us look at essentially what the Christian blood atonement of sin actually is:

So Christians believe God transferred the sin of mankind upon (a person of) Himself and had Himself killed at the hands of a bunch of Jews and Romans in order to forgive the sin. On the other hand Muslims believe God simply forgives sin out of His Mercy without a need to have to send himself to the earth, lower himself and get himself slaughterewd at the hands of Jews and Romans.

The Muslim view clearly makes MUCH more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God.

So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.

I'm going to stop you right there.

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence. Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.
Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

alright, so i have been wondering why exactly you have been unwilling to actually engage my actual argument and so i decided to do a quick google search and lo and behold, you haven't really been debating me in the first place. instead you were copying other people's articles almost word for word and passing them off as your own. you did not have the common decency to include them in quotes so that we'd know that the words were never yours in the first place and i have noticed this before. this certainly is not the first time. case in point:

http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=175&chapter=23

if we compare the above link with what you have in your post we'll see that you've just been copying and pasting other people's arguments word for word. this is why you could not actually deal with my actual posts because you have been unable to actual find a website which responds to the line of argument that i have presented. i'm really not going to bother discussing with an individual who repeatedly passes off other people's words as his own. hamza, our discussion here is done because you have repeatedly been unwilling to actually deal with those posts of mine which actually deal with the purpose of this thread. given that this discussion is way above your comprehension level you have simply been copying and pasting other people's words but seeing as they haven't come across a line of argument such as mine it now becomes quite clear why your statements never actually had to do with the posts of mine that this discussion should have been centered on. so i repeat, this little discussion is over hamza, yes i'll continue my discussion with woodrow, yes i'll continue my discussion with yahya but certainly not with you seeing as you have proven yourself unfit for such a discussion in the first place. that said, if your co-religionists actually believe that the words which you copied, pasted and passed off as your own are actually good arguments then they can certainly pick up these points in their discussion with me but you and i are certainly done here (unless of course you now wish to actually engage my actual posts and try to save yahya's failing argument now that you have been exposed in this manner).

another christian is certainly welcome to pick up where i left off debating whoever it is that actually wrote the words contained in hamza's post.

now to the other participants (for what must seem like the hundredth time to me): can we actually begin quoting from my rebuttal to yahya's argument and show how my points were at all wrong? why is it that there seems to be such an aversion towards simply doing so?

Greetings Sol,

This is coming from a person who constantly copies and pastes his flawed arguments from anti-Islamic websites. When i do my research if i find the wording to be appropriate to the discussion then it does not need to be changed or simplified. That website was used for part of my post as was reseaarch from many websites in my including Christian websites. So it would be difficult to quote every single source for every single post, unlike yourself who is clearly dishonest about the anti-islamic websites he uses to try and prove his flawed arguments which have all been refuted.

Why is it that you want to run away from this discussion which is VERY relevant to the thread and the discussion on the concept of sin in Islam and Christianity?

It is clear for all to see Sol that you are wanting to run away from this discussion because you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence from the teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible to prove the Christian concept of Christs blood atonement of sin.

I still await for you to answer the questions posed to you in my last post and i urge you not to run away from this discussion.

If you refuse to have this discussion with me then clearly you have conceded that you CANNOT provide ANY evidence to prove that the Christian concept of blood atonement of sin was a teaching of Jesus and the Bible.

You also have'nt answered WHY babies and the unborn who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

There is NO doubt that 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, cruel, troubling and very disturbing indeed and most of all it is NOT backed up by the teachings of Jesus or the Bible.

 

[Sol Invictus]

This is coming from a person who constantly copies and pastes his flawed arguments from anti-Islamic websites.

prove it. as i recall, i go so far as to even distinguish my very own words which are not native to this thread.

Why is it that you want to run away from this discussion which is VERY relevant to the thread and the discussion on the concept of sin in Islam and Christianity?

prove it. i have asked time and time again for you to go back to my post and quote those sections which rely on the premise of original sin. if you can show that this is the case then certainly we can talk about the matter. i simply have no need to talk about original sin when it doesn't affect my post at all.

t is clear for all to see Sol that you are wanting to run away from this discussion because you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence from the teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible to prove the Christian concept of Christs blood atonement of sin.

yes, when jesus says that "this is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins" he actually means "i'm not dying for your sins at all, lol". at this point, you have shown us what your character entails because even when we can clearly cite christ as speaking concerning his saving blood, you are more then willing to ignore this and then have the audacity to claim that such a thing is not found in the bible.

You also have'nt answered WHY babies and the unborn who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

they do not go to hell but more importantly, this has nothing to do with my post. you're trying to draw me away from what this discussion actually entails. if you want to continue this talk of original sin go back to my post and prove how my argument relies on original sin. i don't see why i need to make my argument even longer when i can simply refute the islamic concept of forgiveness without any need of talking about original sin. go back to my first two posts and start taking me to task as it concerns them. i realize that this will be very hard to do seeing as they don't really fit anything that you can copy and paste from your islamic websites but surely you can use your own intelligence to make a logical argument. once again, go back to my posts and show everyone here how i haven't refuted yahya's argument, how my post makes no sense and also, how my argument relies on the premise of original sin in order to be proven correct.

seriously, can we now start attacking my rebuttal towards yahya?

 

[YusufNoor]

I'm going to stop you right there.

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence. Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.
Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing.[/QUOTE

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence.

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
sin exists - according to your book, Jesus created it.

Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.

even if you reject my first reply. God must know everything. God created man knowing he would sin, so God knowingly created the agent of sin, ergo God created sin.

Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing

in Islam God created EVERYTHING, THEREFORE God created the things with evil or the ability to be evil. God created man KNOWING full well man would sin. the GREAT GIFT we got from sinning was the ability to repent and turn back to Allah! proper repentance gets us Allah's forgiveness. Shaytan did not get this gift, he rather chose to believe that God was wrong.

you say God did not possess the ability to forgive until he killed himself. it just sounds too loopy!

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

prove it. as i recall, i go so far as to even distinguish my very own words which are not native to this thread.


prove it. i have asked time and time again for you to go back to my post and quote those sections which rely on the premise of original sin. if you can show that this is the case then certainly we can talk about the matter. i simply have no need to talk about original sin when it doesn't affect my post at all.


yes, when jesus says that "this is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins" he actually means "i'm not dying for your sins at all, lol". at this point, you have shown us what your character entails because even when we can clearly cite christ as speaking concerning his saving blood, you are more then willing to ignore this and then have the audacity to claim that such a thing is not found in the bible.


they do not go to hell but more importantly, this has nothing to do with my post. you're trying to draw me away from what this discussion actually entails. if you want to continue this talk of original sin go back to my post and prove how my argument relies on original sin. i don't see why i need to make my argument even longer when i can simply refute the islamic concept of forgiveness without any need of talking about original sin. go back to my first two posts and start taking me to task as it concerns them. i realize that this will be very hard to do seeing as they don't really fit anything that you can copy and paste from your islamic websites but surely you can use your own intelligence to make a logical argument. once again, go back to my posts and show everyone here how i haven't refuted yahya's argument, how my post makes no sense and also, how my argument relies on the premise of original sin in order to be proven correct.

seriously, can we now start attacking my rebuttal towards yahya?

Greetings again Sol,

I think you are either tired again today or that you are way out of your depth here because you have not been able to disaprove a single point that has been brought forth with regards to the concept of blood atonement NOT being a teaching of Jesus or the Bible but you have continueosly tried to run away from from this discussion when it is VERY relevant to this thread which is about the central flaw of Christianity and this doctrine is without a doubt one of the many central flaws of Christianity.

Our discussion in this thread thus far has been about the Islamic concept of sin which was clearly explained to you in more than one way as well as the troubling and disturbiung Christian doctrine of the blood atonement of Christ in which you have consistantly been unable to provide a shred of evidence that it is in anyway supported by the teachings of any prophet, Jesus or the Bible.

You also have not refuted WHY according to the Christian doctrine of the blood atonement means that unborn babies who die are destined TO BURN IN HELL?

So again Sol do not run away from the discussion but answer the points brought forth in my previous post regarding the disturbing and troubled Christian concept of the blood atonement of Christ.

 

[Sol Invictus]

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
sin exists - according to your book, Jesus created it.

sin is not a created thing, it only exists as a concept until it is actualized. think about it, sin is something we should not do and in fact when we sin we create more sin. if you claim that god created sin then you are claiming that he sinned in doing so for just as we are being good when we create good (such as helping out others) we are sinning when we are creating sin. please, let's not go down that road where we start claiming that god created sin.

even if you reject my first reply. God must know everything. God created man knowing he would sin, so God knowingly created the agent of sin, ergo God created sin.

that doesn't make any sense. is this really what muslims believe or is this your own opinion? i do not want to make a blanket statement concerning islam if this is just your own opinion. god did not create sin. having the capacity for something and actualizing it are two different things. sin is not even a thing in itself but rather the absence of something else. it is the absence of good and not a living entity unto itself. it exists only when you have actualized it (that is, when you have done something contrary to the good). as such, sin was not 'created' by god but rather by the first sinner.

n Islam God created EVERYTHING, THEREFORE God created the things with evil or the ability to be evil. God created man KNOWING full well man would sin. the GREAT GIFT we got from sinning was the ability to repent and turn back to Allah!

wait, so the muslim deity gave you the ability to sin so that he could forgive you? anyway, i'll let grace seeker handle the rest but on a different note, i'm glad that you've at least acknowledged that the bible teaches christ to be god. interestingly enough, i've noticed that a lot of members on this board like to forget this whenever the discussion calls for it.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I think you are either tired again today or that you are way out of your depth here because you have not been able to disaprove a single point that has been brought forth with regards to the concept of blood atonement NOT being a teaching of Jesus or the Bible but you have continueosly tried to run away from from this discussion when it is VERY relevant to this thread which is about the central flaw of Christianity and this is without a doubt a central flaw of the Christian doctrine which is NOT supported by the teachings of Jesus or the Bible.

i certainly am not tired hamza, but thank you very much for the inquiry.

once again, i certainly am willing to continue participating within this thread but i have no interest in debating things which will neither help nor hinder my argument at all. if you feel that these topics are relevant, can you go back to my post and quote the relevant sections to show how my argument is founded on the subject of original sin? it's very simple hamza. yahya wrote a post, i have written a rebuttal and now we are waiting for someone to pick up the mantle that your co-religionist dropped. i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims. seriously, instead of continuing on with my argument, you'd like me to focus on something else entirely. now, if you want me to oblige you in such a manner, can you please show us how my argument at all needs any of what you have claimed above in order to work? start attacking my actual rebuttals toward yahya please.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

i certainly am not tired hamza, but thank you very much for the inquiry.

once again, i certainly am willing to continue participating within this thread but i have no interest in debating things which will neither help nor hinder my argument at all. if you feel that these topics are relevant, can you go back to my post and quote the relevant sections to show how my argument is founded on the subject of original sin? it's very simple hamza. yahya wrote a post, i have written a rebuttal and now we are waiting for someone to pick up the mantle that your co-religionist dropped. i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims. seriously, instead of continuing on with my argument, you'd like me to focus on something else entirely. now, if you want me to oblige you in such a manner, can you please show us how my argument at all needs any of what you have claimed above in order to work? start attacking my actual rebuttals toward yahya please.

Ok then it is clear for all to see that you have conceded in the fact that the troubled and disturbing concept of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT in anyway supported by the teachings of ANY prophet, or by Jesus, or the Christian deity, or the Bible and you have also conceded that this belief also results in that unborn babies who die are destined to burn in Hell forever.

Now i am happy to move on. Without quoting vast previous posts because this is now a discussion between me and you, can you succintly in a paragraph tell me what you would like to discuss...

 

[Sol Invictus]

Ok then it is clear for all that to see that you have conceded with the fact that the troubled and disturbing concept of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT in anyway supported by any prophet, by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible and the fact that this belief also results in that unborn babies who die are destined to burn in Hell forever.

as long as you're willing to ignore the words:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

then sure, you can believe that christ doesn't teach in his blood atonement.

Now i am happy to move on. Without quoting vast previous posts because this is now a discussion between me and you, can you succintly in a paragraph tell me what you would like to discuss...

hamza, i presented an argument to refute what yahya had said concerning the christian conception of forgiveness and actually showed how the muslim conception is defective. what i would like from you is the same thing that i have been asking since my very first post. can you start quoting from my rebuttals towards yahya in order to show how my post is actually wrong and how the christian concept of forgiveness which i have espoused therein is contrary to logic. once again, please get to quoting my posts and then attacking them.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

as long as you're willing to ignore the words:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

then sure, you can believe that christ doesn't teach in his blood atonement.

Yes you are correct he did NOT teach in his blood atonement at all. In this verse it is clear that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Again as i asked you in my previous post - Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for they do NOT say nor do they imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible itself confirms without s shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned NOTHING about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

hamza, i presented an argument to refute what yahya had said concerning the christian conception of forgiveness and actually showed how the muslim conception is defective. what i would like from you is the same thing that i have been asking since my very first post. can you start quoting from my rebuttals towards yahya in order to show how my post is actually wrong and how the christian concept of forgiveness which i have espoused therein is contrary to logic. once again, please get to quoting my posts and then attacking them.

Sol i am not about to go through pages and pages of your interactions with Yahya. I said to you in my last post that this is now a discussion between me and you and not you and Yahya. It was you who was so eager to divert the topic in discussion and now i have agreed to do so.

Therefore start a point for discussion and we will let things flow from there.