[Faith-talk] Christianity in consequential doctrines.

[Mostafa via Faith-talk]

Dear all, peace be with you.

Today I would like to inshallah proceed on discussing one of the most important beliefs in the Christian faith.

These posts are just meant for theological dialogs, and it does not have any missionary interests.

Some people think that I am sending repetitions.

I do not send any repetitions, although my posts are sequentially relevant to each other.

    I may readdress the same subject multiple times, but I never plajarize, and I never circularize my propositions into vicious cycles.

  So at its inception, let us  define some terminology.

1; Original sin.

Original sin is the doctrine which asserts that when Adam and eve ate from the forbidden tree, the sinfulness entered into the world, and their ancestry inherited the sinful nature.
2; Crucifixion.

Crucifixion is the doctrine which asserts that Jesus was crucified, he was nailed on the cross, and he was brutally murdered in order to ransom us,, and to sacrifice his life for the forgiveness of humanity.

3; Redemption.

Redemption is the doctrinal tennet which asserts that whoever believes in the doctrines of Original sin and the Crucifixion shall be saved.

  4; Resurrection.

Resurrection is the doctrinal tennet which affirms that Jesus miraculously  resurrected from the death three days after his Crucifixion, and that what apparently makes him divine for Christians.

5; Trinity.

Trinity is the Christian assertion which affirms that God is represented into the triune, coequal and coeternal being.  

Now, let us scrutinize  each concept individually.

1; Original sin.

I believe that Original sin is the fundamental basis, the bedrock, it is the crucial foundation of the doctrines of Crucifixion and Redemption.

If Original sin was not portrayed, the doctrines of Crucifixion and Redemption would have been insignificant.

The wonderment here may render as follows.

Why after the disobedience of Adam and Eve, they were not given the chance to repent?

Why they were held utterly accountable?

It was their first sin anyway.

Why the sinful nature has had to forcefully be imposed on those who never witnessed this incident?

If someone committed a terrible crime, he will licitly be held accountable.

  But, can we rationally charge his whole family, and those who are yet to come out  of his lineage? 

Is that really just?

Furthermore, why the divine omnipotence  did not instantly interpose to prevent the sinful impact from widely disseminating as such?

Was God incompetent?

Is not he omnipotent?

These question and more are standing up  as rational obstacles for the doctrinal constituents of Original sin.

Moreover, is the controversial term Original sin even mentioned in the scriptural text?

More importantly, Why the divinely eternal Jesus did not intervene?

2; Crucifixion.

Did Jesus want to be crucified?

The parables themselves do not explicitly teach that Jesus wanted to be crucified.

They seamingly contradict with each other.

I believe that if Jesus really wanted to be crucified, he would have plainly articulated his divine mission.

According to the Synoptics, Jesus cried out; my lord, my lord, why you have foresaken me.

That is not a yell of joy though.

That is an exclamation  of weep and sorrow.

Furthermore, Jesus has called upon the Lord.

So how come he is the lord of lords and the king of kings?

I knew that Christians have already explained that but, is their explanation actually reliable and rationally convincing?

I am just attempting to fathom.

We may disagree on the core of what we believe, but we are quite fellows in humanity at the end of the day.

3; Redemption.

Redemption is what Christians today have devoutly recognized as  merely the prosper pathway to salvation.

  Typical Christians would be assumed to believe in it as such.

The question would probably be, did Jesus decisively ordain his followers to believe in that?

Christian apologists and evangelists will derive, interpret, and they will implicitly imply all that is possible and impossible, applicable and inapplicable, consistent and inconsistent to just support their proclaimation.

All their illustrations are not theologically satisfactory.

4; Resurrection.

Resurrection is what Christians believe in that Jesus has risen from the dead after three days.

Well however, according to your parables, he was crucified on Friday evening, he remained in the tomb the rest of Friday, he remained there the whole Saturday, and he ultimately resurrected on Sunday morning.

So he actually stayed there for Saturday eve and Saturday, that is a day, and some part of the night.

So they are not three days, but anyway.

I will theoretically suppose that Jesus resurrected after three days.

Does that make him divine?

One of the most tremendously preposterous statements that Christian poor apologists tend to make, that they say prophet Muhammad did not risen from the dead unlike Jesus, Jesus died for our sins, but Muhammad did not.

Does the resurrection is enough to divinely exult someone?

  Well, so we all will die at some point.

In spite of how long we are going to stay in our tombs, but we will spend some time there, and then we  will resurrect by basicly the divine discretionary of Allah glory be to Him.

Allah will certainly resurrect us all, including Jesus, Muhammad, angels, the devil, and all of His creation.

So, how could Jesus be divine because he resurrected from the dead.

As I  said, I am just posing a theoretical proposal for the sake of the discussion.

5; Trinity.

Of course, we already conversed, debated, and constantly readdressed that subject.

I will just attempt to potentially expatiate my discussion into a more advanced level.

  As the Trinity has always been defined;

It is the doctrine which asserts that the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are coequally and coeternally God.

They represent the divine triune being if I may say.

Well, some Christians though, some denominations believe that the Holy spirit lives inside of them.

Does it mean that part of God lives inside of me?

That is absolute blasphemy.

I cannot even barely buy this.

That does indeed intercept with my basic intellectual factors.

Well, that is virtually the end of my post for this week.

I am sure we will not agree on everything.

Perhaps we will never agree at all.

So why then I am insisting to debate Christians.

I am sure that many of you have wondered;

If he does not believe in what we believe, why he cannot just leave us alone?

Well, I am actually trying to build bridges of mutual interests and common objectives.

My objections are based on interconnection of theological and philosophical contentions.

I realize at the same time that my Christian friends may not be very happy about what I say.

Nobody forces anyone to abandon a faith in order to embrace another one.

We just can share and discuss our different faiths with each other.

That is why they call it interfaith dialog.

It really speaks for itself.

I really wish to invite everyone to a round table discussion, in which we can thoroughly scrutinize and analyze to just recognize that we are different from each other, but we certainly are not in confrontation with one another.

We also have many mutual tennets.

  I cannot imagine my life without my Christian friends.

I cannot imagine Egypt without coptics living harmoniously with us.

I cannot imagine my street without the Coptic Church which is located in the square here.

I cannot imagine the Noble Koran without mentioning Jews and Christians, the Torah and the Gospel.

I cannot imagine the middle east without Muslims and Christians living together, where are Muslims the majority, and Christians the minority.

I cannot imagine the west without Christians and Muslims living together, where are Christians are the majority, whilst Muslims are the minority.

We are here to integrate with each other in this world.

In addition to what we believe, it is Allah Who will judge us.
I tremendously admire the pluralistic  social principles in Canada, where everyone is equally represented, regardless of his faith or race.

I have barely heard about racial incidents in Canada.

It is my fantasized home.

I believe it is timely now to send this message out.

I enjoy typing that, and I hope it does not bother my recipients.

Ultimately, I must unfeignedly express my mourns to those who were wrongfully killed in the mass murder incident in Santa Barbara  today.

I am just wondering, why it is classified a mass murder rather than a terrorist attack?   

I believe that the words were carefully chosen to describe this incident.

I at the end have to warmly welcome Pope Francis of his first visit to the middle east.

He  happily visited Jordan today, and I wish the rest of his journey a remarkable prosperity.

Thank you for reading, and have a pleasant time.