AmalJaber wrote:
Indeed, these two doctrines are not related to each other in anyway. However, the basis of my argument is that; you cannot reject the doctrine of original sin on the basis that it is unfair – something inconsistent with a just and fair God, but still believe in a version of predestination – nay – fatalism that God created you with a certain measure of Zina that you MUST commit, on the basis that it is consistent with the doctrine of Sovereignty of God.
This was your op:
AmalJaber wrote:Why don't majority of Muslims believe in the Doctrine of Original sin yet the Koran has not expressly denied it? I have found many Muslims (even here,) who profess the doctrine of Predestination, yet claim that the doctrine of original sin is unfair? Isn't this contradictory?
You clearly insinuate that original sin and predestination are mutually inclusive concepts. All Abrahamic religions profess some form of theological determinism, yet Christianity alone (since Augustine invented it in the 4th century) espouses the doctrine of original sin. I understand that you're trying to tie together God's omniscience/the compatibilism of Abrahamic faiths with original sin, yet you're making the mistake of equating God's foreknowledge of your sin with a doctrine that unequivocally states that a child that dies before baptism is condemned to hell.
AmalJaber wrote:The doctrine of Original Sin has nothing to with the man being punished for the sins of Adam. It is an explanation of why man is sinful, and why we suffer from the problems that we do. It simply explains that ever since the fall of man, creation has never been the same again. We are suffering the consequences of the sin of Adam. So let me ask you a good question, if Adam had never sinned will the world be the way it is? certainly not!Both Christianity and Islam clearly explain that the sin of Adam had grave consequences – not only on Adam and His wife, but also on their children.
That is precisely what original sin is; all are
inherently sinners because Adam ate a fruit and will burn in hell unless they are baptized. You once again fail to discern between man being
born a sinner (which Christianity teaches) and man having the
capacity for both good and evil. Once again, I find it telling that you've yet to address the fact that original sin was first preached by Augustine centuries after Christ, and that the doctrine held that infants who died before baptism are condemned to hell for a crime they never committed.
AmalJaber wrote:The fact that man is born with the sinful nature in him does not mean that he does not have the capacity to do good. The church, has never taught that a human being cannot do good. However, doing good does not make you good. Now, if I were to tell you that today I know of a man who has never committed any sin he was born, will you believe?
Once again, you're making the mistake of equating being born
with the capacity for evil with actually
being born evil, which Christianity teaches. These are two
very distinct ideas. When you say, "if I were to tell you that today I know of a man who has never committed any sin he was born, will you believe?", you seem to be ignoring the fact that original sin preaches not only is man prone to sin, but rather that man is
born evil. When you say that the Qu'ran teaches that man is prone to sin and contrast it with the doctrine of original sin, you fail to realize that being prone to sin has little to do with being born a sinner.
Equating a tendency to sin with being born already sinful is nothing short of a false equivalency. For the umpteenth time, the doctrine of original sin teaches that infants who die before baptism are bound for hell, or at the very least, are bound for purgatory. You might not "read" Augustine, but there is no doubt that he was the originator of the doctrine you've been vehemently defending and which has confounded and divided Christians for centuries.
