Dear all, peace be with you. Today, we inshAllah are going to critically
readdress the concept of Redemption and Original Sin in Christianity.
Original Sin is basically the backbone, it is the bedrock on which the
doctrines of Redemption and Crucifixion are based. Original sin is the
doctrine that Adam and Eve had offended the divine presence. It is a sin
said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam and Eve as They sinfully ate
from the forbidden tree. That led them to be taken out of Eden and thence,
had earned their descendance eternal damnation. As Christian Apologists say,
someone had to pay the bill of this mass blasphemy and thus, God sent his
only begotten son to sacrifice himself for the sake of humanity. Whilst this
concept is apparently consistent and chronological, it is not accepted
as it fallaciously seams to be. To this distorted concept, there are
theological and juristic objections. Theologically, this concept is refuted
with the repudiation of condescending the divine to the temporal pursuance.
Those who insist to disgraciously desecrate the divine by falsely
proclaiming that he had to die on the cross for their sins, or that he had
to send his merely begotten son to die for mass resentment, they desecrate
the divine Omnipotence with imperfection. It essentially depends on whether
you belong to those who consider Jesus as God without internal distinctions,
a Unitarian, or you’re an adherent of Trinitarianism. No one is absolutely
sure of who died on the Cross or, if there was even a Crucifixion in the
first place. The Christian Epiphany is reprobated with the Transcendent
Omnipotence of Allah glory be to Him to either atone or penalise without any
discretion. Juristically, this concept is morally inadequate, for what it
incorrectly consents of sanctioning the innocent for the sake of the guilty.
On a judicial level, justice is conducted with decisive evidence and
incisiveness. Christian Ministers constantly emphasise on the emotional
aspect of their Redemption chronicle, without paying much attention whether
it matches up to the principles of divine justice. I don’t care how
affectionate the story might sound to be. What matters to me is, how just
this concept is? I want Christian missionary activists to ask a competent
jurist of their domestic residence, is it licitly excusable for you to
punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty who justly deserves retribution?
The conversation is temporarily suspended at this point. The problem lies
over beyond a particular tree that has erroneously been eaten. It worsens
when a particular race is intrinsically depicted as crème de la crème for
just its texture or complexion. This is what they modernly define as racism.
The United States ranks as the topping racist nation worldwide. Its racial
history is filled with disparity and ethnic secernment. It bases its
purportedly patriotic sentiment on often racial inequality and topical
divergence. That is what we should rather call, Original Sin. Racial acts
are enormously minacious to social stability and coexistence. There shall
not be any tolerance of exerting discriminative practices, either on gender,
ethnic, social or religious basis. That is our everlasting combat as humans,
resembling the unity, peace and safety of our precious species. Islam
doesn't bear our initial parents accountable for Original Sin. It rather
recognises Lucifer to be the first sinner. His trespassing act has involved
committing pride. Consequently, he has been expelled, depressed and
anathemised. As Muslims, we have a totally different concept of Original
Sin. I wrote about the subject because I believe it is of worth noting.
Thank you for reading, Bob Evans
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
