Posts Tagged ‘original sin’

“Why I find Christianity dangerous to the human mind”

May 5, 2015

One may view my post on < > and comment on it..

Post #78

Paarsurrey wrote:The above is true about Paul’s Christianity.
It has nothing to do with Jesus who never believed these tenets.


Baseless “original sin”: invention of sinful Paul, sinful scribes and sinful Church

April 19, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

April 19, 2014 at 10:46 am
@INSPIREDBYTHEDIVINE1 :April 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
” ‘God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
Because that makes perfect sense’
This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.”
This is fascinating. I’d forgotten that Islam doesn’t favor Paul. Christians do though. Thus, right here in John’s backyard, we have not one, but two omnipotent religious experts on the origins of existence. However, the two experts are members of two very different all-knowing religions. Paul is not vile to a Christians. To Christians he is a Saint and the true spreader of Christianity. But to Muslims, he is vile and evil. He spread untrue ideas about Jesus around. Two vastly different views from two totally infallible faiths. Is Paul a Saint and wonderful, or is he a vile idiot who spread a baseless creed about the Holy Trinity. Both can not be right. Calling Paul baseless and vile means the Holy Trinity is made up bullshit and Jesus isn’t God and did not rise from the dead on Easter. Saying Paul’s a Saint and his creed correct, is saying Jesus is God; did rise from the dead, and, along with two other gods, is part of a trilogy of gods that, in reality, are just one god. SOM’s infallible faith and Paarsurey’s infallible faith can not both be right. Only one can be right on this. Is, or isn’t Jesus the one true God? Let me repeat, is Jesus or isn’t Jesus God? Is Paul a vile idiot, or a Saint in Christ’s Church, the Church of the one true God. Things get so bloody complicated when people simply can’t say, “I don’t know. I might be wrong,etc.” I do not know nor pretend to know, how the universe came to be. It’s existence is proof it exists, not proof magical fairies made it. I do not have faith gods do not exist, BTW. They might, and I’m open to meeting them when they show up, but as of today, I’ve seen no evidence for believing they have. SOM, your brain hasn’t just been washed, it’s been bleached, salted, and fried. Your views are fundamentally sophomoric and reflective of an insipid indoctrination into an antiquated and dying belief system. Your rhetoric is redundantly circular, your reasoning laden with confirmation biases and your lack of wit tedious, boring, and insulting to the intelligence. Thus, whenever I respond to it, I do so with the all the respect I feel it deserves. I’ve said my last bit on this matter as I’ve grown quite bored of it. Paul: vile creed maker and vile man or Saint? Jesus, prophet, or God?” Unquote

I don’t bash sinful Paul. I only defend Jesus and Mary and their teachings. I have mentioned core teachings of Jesus from the Bible (Matthew 22:36-40); there is no place in Jesus’ core teachings of the baseless creeds invented by sinful Paul, sinful scribes and the sinful Church.

I have qualified Paul, scribes and Church with the word “sinful”; because they collaborated to invent the creed of “original sin” out of thin air and made all humanity sinful by birth for nothing. They say that everybody is sinful except Jesus; and everybody does not exclude Paul, scribes and the Church. I have only highlighted what this baseless creed is.

All humans whatever their religion or no religion are born innocent; when they attain maturity and are confirmed of what is good and what is evil in their conscience; then they become virtuous or sinful as per their concepts and deeds.
If a sin is committed one could ask forgiveness from the One-True-God; He may forgive.

Jesus said he was Son of Man or Son of Adam; if Adam would have been a sinful person and Jesus would have believed that and of the original sin; he would have not ascribed any son-ship to Adam. Paul invented this creed on his own collaborated by the scribes of Bible and Church.

Paul, scribes and the Church have nothing to do with Jesus and Mary and their teachings and deeds.


“Baptism: Necessary?”

January 27, 2014

Sabio Lantz an atheist blogger introduced “John Barron” in his blog with these words.
“John Barron is conservative Christian with a popular blog. He is intelligent and a fine writer.”
I therefore visited blog of John Barron “Sifting Reality” @ I wrote following comment on the post titled “Baptism: Necessary?” byTerranceH.

paarsurrey says:

January 27, 2014 at 10:10 AM

“people of all religions should feel free to participate. What does your religion believe?”
Thanks for inviting followers of other religions for participation in the discussion; it means you are an open mind.

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

In Islam/Quran there is no baptism; please define as to what is “baptism”.?
Islam/Quran/Muhammad do not hold that man is sinful by birth; there is no “original sin”; every human is born innocent.

Thanks and regards

Let the masses understand life in easy terms please

January 15, 2014

I wrote following post for the benefit of the public at


paarsurrey @ Captain Cassidy

Quoting your words:

“If there’s no literal Creation, then there can’t be a literal Fall, and from there no literal Original Sin, which means there’s no need for a literal Jesus to die and be apparently risen again. There might not even be a real hell or heaven to threaten or entice people with.” Unquote

Quran here comes to the rescue of the Bible for correct understanding of the things lost its originality due to the manipulation of the scribes of Bible.

Taking the narrative of Adam’s creation as literal is a misunderstanding of the scribes and is wrong. Adam was not the first man created/evolved; man might have evolved in millions of years as science has deciphered it rightly now. Adam and Eve were the first people chosen for the direct Converse with the One-True-God as the words ““[9] And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou?”
It also is the mistake of the eulogizers of science and scientists to take the Word Revealed on Krishna, Moses, Jesus etc as if they were writing text books of science; they never claimed as such.

It is easy for the ordinary/common man to understand the things in nutshell and in a symbolic or poetic way than in terms of the formulas, equations and other difficult terminologies of science; which is the job of Scientist to do and they must do it for the benefit of the human society.
So, please let it be simple. Let the masses understand life in easy terms.


Did Jesus wager or bet or gamble? | Pascal’s Wager

April 11, 2013

Jesus did not wager or bet or gamble in my opinion. He neither did it nor did he promote such ventures. May be Paul did it; I am not sure, but perhaps his apologists followers like Blaise Pascal did play it; hence we get Pascal’s Wager.

Christopher Hitchens hints about this Pascal’s Wager and makes its critical assessment in following words:

“Eternal Punishment and Impossible Tasks

The Gospel story of the Garden of Gethsemane used to absorb
me very much as a child, because its “break” in the action and its
human whimper made me wonder if some of the fantastic scenario
might after all be true. Jesus asks, in effect, “Do I have to go through
with this?”

It is an impressive and unforgettable question, and I
long ago decided that I would cheerfully wager my own soul on the
belief that the only right answer to it is “no.” We cannot, like fear-ridden
peasants of antiquity, hope to load all our crimes onto a goat
and then drive the hapless animal into the desert.

Our everyday idiom
is quite sound in regarding “scapegoating” with contempt. And religion
is scapegoating writ large. I can pay your debt, my love, if you
have been imprudent, and if I were a hero like Sidney Carton in A
Tale of Two Cities I could even serve your term in prison or take your
place on the scaffold. Greater love hath no man. But I cannot absolve
you of your responsibilities. It would be immoral of me to offer, and
immoral of you to accept. And if the same offer is made from another
time and another world, through the mediation of middlemen and
accompanied by inducements, it loses all its grandeur and becomes
debased into wish-thinking or, worse, a combination of blackmailing
with bribery.

The ultimate degeneration of all this into a mere bargain was
made unpleasantly obvious by Blaise Pascal, whose theology is not
far short of sordid. His celebrated “wager” puts it in hucksterish form:
what have you got to lose? If you believe in god and there is a god,
you win. If you believe in him and you are wrong—so what?

I once
wrote a response to this cunning piece of bet-covering, which took
two forms. The first was a version of Bertrand Russell’s hypothetical
reply to the hypothetical question: what will you say if you die and are
confronted with your Maker? His response? “I should say, Oh God,
you did not give us enough evidence.” My own reply: Imponderable
Sir, I presume from some if not all of your many reputations that you
might prefer honest and convinced unbelief to the hypocritical and
self-interested affectation of faith or the smoking tributes of bloody
altars. But I would not count on it.” Unquote

Reference: “God is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens: Pages: 211-212, Chapter Fifteen, “Religion as an Original Sin”

How could Pascal defend with reason Paul’s made-up creed of the “Original Sin” mentioned above which even Jesus never believed in or supported? Like Paul invented the concept of “Original Sin” so did the Christian apologist Blaise Pascal invent “Pascal’s Wager”, of no use.

Christianity’s creeds: Jesus was a god, Jesus was son of god, Trinity, Jesus died a cursed death on Cross; Jesus got resurrected from dead, Jesus’ ascension to heavens, original sin, atonement; these beliefs are fabricated creeds of Paul and Church. Jesus never believed in such unreasonable, irrational and deceptive creeds; hence even a genius cannot defend them.

Why leave Jesus?

“Original Sin”: not an OTBiblical term believed by Jesus or Mary

December 19, 2008
original sin

Originally Posted by severntofall:
What’s the whole deal with Adam and Eve? Why did their eating fruit from the tree of life anger God so greatly? How did this sin impact humanity? What would earth be like now if they hadn’t of committed this sin?

Paarsurrey says:


All sins are sins; there is no original sin. Every sin can be forgiven by God Allah; only the sinner has to sincerely repent of his sin and resolve not to do it again and ask forgiveness from God Allah in total humility. This term “original sin” is not used in OTBible. Jesus and Mary were Jews, they never used this term from their mouth.

Only Paul invented this term to base his theological philosophy to confuse the Catholics in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

severntofall says:

Very true; it was actually centuries after Jesus’ death before this concept was ever discussed.

%d bloggers like this: