From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Thu Jul 6 23:29:12 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:29:12 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] NABL Annual Meeting 2017 Message-ID: <002401d2f6af$ace627c0$06b27740$@labarrelaw.com> Greetings Everyone: Attached and pasted below is the Agenda for this year's Annual Meeting taking place at the NFB Convention next week. If you are going to be there, please do attend. Dues for NABL are $25 a year and include the registration for this meeting. Dues for studetns are $5 and include your registration fee for the meeting. If you wish the CLE materials and certificate, it is an additional $20 for a total of $45. Those paying dues will receive a ticket for the reception following our meeting. I look forward to seeing many of you in Orlando. Best, Scott AGENDA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLIND LAWYERS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Wednesday, July 12, 2017 Panzacola Ballroom H-3, Level 1 Rosen Shingle Creek Orlando, Florida 12:55 pm WELCOME AND MEETING LOGISTICS Scott C. LaBarre, President, NABL, Denver, Colorado 1:00 pm ADVANCING DISABILITY RIGHTS IN THE SOUTHEAST Matthew W. Dietz, Litigation Director and President, Disability Independence Group Inc., Miami, Florida 1:30 pm PRACTICING LAW EFFECTIVELY AS A BLIND LAWYER: FROM HIGH TECH TO LOW TECH Patti S. Chang, Board Member, NABL, Director of Outreach, NFB, Chicago, Illinois; Deepinder K. Goraya, Esq., Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Project, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC; Tai Thomasi, Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa 2:05 pm AN UPDATE FROM WESTLAW Anne Naber, Accessibility Specialist, Legal Division, Thomson Reuters, Eagan, Minnesota 2:15 pm TRANSFORMING OUR RIGHTS INTO REALITY: AN NFB LITIGATION UPDATE Mark Riccobono, President, NFB, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark Maurer, Immediate Past President, Director of Legal Programs, NFB, Baltimore, Maryland; Valerie Yingling, Legal Program Coordinator, NFB, Baltimore, Maryland; Eve Hill, Partner, Brown, Goldstein and Levy, Baltimore, Maryland 3:15 pm BREAK 3:25 pm DEFENDING WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES AND PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS: A PANEL DISCUSSION PROVIDING A SENECA CASE UPDATE AND FEATURING PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE Marc Maurer, Director Legal Programs, NFB, Baltimore, Maryland; Rebecca Babarsky, Staff Attorney, Disability rights Ohio, Columbus, Ohio; Joe Magers, Pam Steward, Mark Felton, Workers at Seneca, Fostoria, Ohio 4:05 pm 31 YEARS OF REPRESENTING THE NFB - GOOD, BETTER AND BEST Daniel F. Goldstein, Partner, Brown, Goldstein and Levy, Baltimore, Maryland 4:35 pm MARRAKESH TREATY ENTERING INTO FORCE: A GLOBAL UPDATE Scott LaBarre, NFB Delegate to the World Intellectual Property Organization, Board Member, Accessible Books Consortium, Denver, Colorado 4:50 pm NABL BUSINESS MEETING AND ELECTIONS 5:00 p.m. ADJOURN TO RECEPTION 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. ANNUAL NABL RECEPTION (ticketed event) Join us for cocktails and hors d'oeuvres as we celebrate the progress of our organization. Network and meet your fellow blind attorneys and legal professionals. Panzacola Ballroom H-2, Level 1 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nabl agenda 2017 final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18099 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Anne.Naber at thomsonreuters.com Fri Jul 7 15:52:14 2017 From: Anne.Naber at thomsonreuters.com (Anne.Naber at thomsonreuters.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:52:14 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Thomson Reuters Westlaw survey Message-ID: <4854F51579FAF44DAAA92AA2CD0978971380076F@EAGE-ERFPMBX46.ERF.thomson.com> Hello all, My name is Anne Naber, and I am an accessibility specialist for the Legal Division of Thomson Reuters. We are conducting a survey about the accessibility of Thomson Reuters Westlaw and also want to gather information about the overall accessibility of web content. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Although this survey contains information specifically about Westlaw, please feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested in answering the general questions in the survey. This survey is anonymous. If you would like to participate in future surveys or are willing to be contacted directly, please email Anne Naber at accessibility-research at thomsonreuters.com and let us know you would like to be added to the list of customers who are interested in having continued and direct input about our products. We want our products to be highly usable and accessible for all our customers, so additional user feedback is extremely important to us. It is your feedback that will help guide our accessibility efforts, and we cannot stress how important your participation is to us. Thank you in advance for your time. We value your input immensely, and will use the information gathered to help us align our accessibility efforts with our customers’ usage and needs. Below is the link to the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WLRTL56 Anne Naber Legal UX- accessibility specialist 651-687-6214 anne.naber at thomsonreuters.com From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Fri Jul 7 16:15:11 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:15:11 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Thomson Reuters Westlaw survey In-Reply-To: <4854F51579FAF44DAAA92AA2CD0978971380076F@EAGE-ERFPMBX46.ERF.thomson.com> References: <4854F51579FAF44DAAA92AA2CD0978971380076F@EAGE-ERFPMBX46.ERF.thomson.com> Message-ID: <006901d2f73c$362be330$a283a990$@labarrelaw.com> Friends, I urge all of you to do this. Thomson Reuters is very commited to making their products accessible and it is critical that we give them the feeback they seek. You may have also noted that Anne will be speaking at our Lawyers meeting at the Convention. Best to all! Scott -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Anne via BlindLaw Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 9:52 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Anne.Naber at thomsonreuters.com Subject: [blindlaw] Thomson Reuters Westlaw survey Hello all, My name is Anne Naber, and I am an accessibility specialist for the Legal Division of Thomson Reuters. We are conducting a survey about the accessibility of Thomson Reuters Westlaw and also want to gather information about the overall accessibility of web content. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Although this survey contains information specifically about Westlaw, please feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested in answering the general questions in the survey. This survey is anonymous. If you would like to participate in future surveys or are willing to be contacted directly, please email Anne Naber at accessibility-research at thomsonreuters.com and let us know you would like to be added to the list of customers who are interested in having continued and direct input about our products. We want our products to be highly usable and accessible for all our customers, so additional user feedback is extremely important to us. It is your feedback that will help guide our accessibility efforts, and we cannot stress how important your participation is to us. Thank you in advance for your time. We value your input immensely, and will use the information gathered to help us align our accessibility efforts with our customers' usage and needs. Below is the link to the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WLRTL56 Anne Naber Legal UX- accessibility specialist 651-687-6214 anne.naber at thomsonreuters.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com From joshl at loevy.com Fri Jul 7 18:39:59 2017 From: joshl at loevy.com (Josh Loevy) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:39:59 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] NABL Annual Meeting 2017 In-Reply-To: <002401d2f6af$ace627c0$06b27740$@labarrelaw.com> References: <002401d2f6af$ace627c0$06b27740$@labarrelaw.com> Message-ID: <5eda9b53aac4fbfd9142a2b7c739b51e@mail.gmail.com> Scott, I'm looking very forward to attending next week and meeting everyone! Do I pay for membership-CLEs in advance, or can I do it on sight? -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: no subject Date: no date Size: 42411 URL: From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Fri Jul 7 19:53:04 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:53:04 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] NABL Annual Meeting 2017 In-Reply-To: <5eda9b53aac4fbfd9142a2b7c739b51e@mail.gmail.com> References: <002401d2f6af$ace627c0$06b27740$@labarrelaw.com> <5eda9b53aac4fbfd9142a2b7c739b51e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <012f01d2f75a$a5cc1b60$f1645220$@labarrelaw.com> Josh, we handle it all on site. Looking forward to seeing you in Orlando. Scott -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Josh Loevy via BlindLaw Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:40 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Josh Loevy Subject: Re: [blindlaw] NABL Annual Meeting 2017 Scott, I'm looking very forward to attending next week and meeting everyone! Do I pay for membership-CLEs in advance, or can I do it on sight? From rogerbaccus at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 19:16:02 2017 From: rogerbaccus at gmail.com (Roger Baccus) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:16:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] How To Get Paid For Copyrighted CD? Message-ID: My CD, Stepping Out Of The Box! was released in 2006. Initially, it was offered on CD Baby by Non Stop Music. The president of Non Stop Music died two years ago. I had been trying to contact him and just discovered his demise. Now, I find that my CD is being offered on Amazon, iTunes and CD Baby. I have not received a penny from any sales. I Can’t find a number for CD Baby. What can I do? Any ideas would be appreciated! Roger Baccus (626)348-2299 http://www.RogerBaccus.com From daniel.smyth06 at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 22:02:58 2017 From: daniel.smyth06 at gmail.com (Daniel Smyth) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:02:58 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question Message-ID: Greetings All, I am taking the NYS Bar in two weeks. I typically use Mac OS X's built in text-to-speech tool in my studies and day-to-day life. As I can't take the bar exam on a Mac I am using a laptop equipped with ZoomText Magnifier/Reader. I am having trouble setting it up to function any way similar to the Mac OS X text-to-speech tool. In sum, I would like to highlight text, push a command key, and have the text read to me. Does anyone have any experience setting up the software to work like that? Thank you all in advance. Sincerely, *Daniel E. Smyth, J.D.* *(917) 692-1978* From dandrews at visi.com Tue Jul 11 03:39:45 2017 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:39:45 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Fwd: Now accepting applications for fall 2017 Internships! Message-ID: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. >Governor Tina Smith" ><dayton.media at state.mn.us> >Date: Jul 10, 2017 5:06 PM >Subject: Now accepting applications for fall 2017 Internships! >To: <ddavis at blindinc.org> >Cc: > > >Calling all college and graduate students > > > > >office of gov Dayton and Lt. governor Smith banner > > > > >July 10, 2017 >                >                >         > >Bookmark and Share > > > > > >Interns at the Office of Governor Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor > > > >Now accepting applications for fall 2017 >internships at the Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. Governor Tina Smith > > > >Excited about state government? Intern with the >Office of Governor Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor >Tina Smith! This internship program affords >students the opportunity to earn college credits >and valuable professional experience. > >College and graduate students may apply. The >program is offered year-round. Interns commit to >at least 12 hours a week; schedules are flexible >between the hours of 9am-5pm, Monday- Friday. > >The Governor's Office is now accepting >applications for fall 2017. The application >deadline is August 2nd. Applicants will be >contacted regarding the status of their application by August 14th. > >For more information and to apply, visit >https://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/internships/ > > > > >Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. Governor Tina Smith > >116 Veterans Service Building > >20 West 12th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55155 > > > > >facebook > > >twitter > > >you tube > > >flicker > > >rss > > > > >Please do not respond to this e-mail. >Contact >the Governor's Office > >  SUBSCRIBER SERVICES > >Manage >Preferences |  >Unsubscribe > |  >Help > > > >This email was sent to >ddavis at blindinc.org >using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf >of the Office of the Governor · 130 State >Capitol · 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. >Blvd. · Saint Paul, MN 55155 · 800-657-3717 > >GovDelivery logo > > >_______________________________________________ >Jobs mailing list >Jobs at nfbnet.org >http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: >http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com From dandrews at visi.com Tue Jul 11 03:41:07 2017 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:41:07 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Fwd: FW: Feinstein LA vacancy Message-ID: > >See below. >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Lewis, Anil" <ALewis at nfb.org> >Date: Jul 10, 2017 6:29 PM >Subject: FW: Feinstein LA vacancy >To: "Dick Davis" <ddavis at blindinc.org> >Cc: > >FYI > > > >From: Jones, Roscoe (Feinstein) >[mailto:Roscoe_Jones at feinstein.senate.gov] > >Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 10:23 AM >To: Jones, Roscoe (Feinstein) >Subject: Feinstein LA vacancy > > > >Friends: > > > >Senator Feinstein is looking for a Legislative >Assistant to handle education, housing >homelessness, and other issues. Please >circulate this posting around to your contacts >and encourage interested candidates from diverse backgrounds to apply.  > > > >Best, > >Roscoe > > > >Roscoe Jones, Jr. > >Legislative Director > >Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >223792 > > > >LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT - > >Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seeks a >Legislative Assistant to handle domestic policy >issues related to education, housing, >homelessness, human services, nutrition, arts >and the humanities, and the Postal >Service. Responsibilities include advising the >Senator on all matters under the issue portfolio >both in California and at the national level; >developing and advancing legislative proposals; >analyzing legislation and drafting vote >recommendations and talking points for floor >proceedings; representing the Senator before >constituents and stakeholders; reviewing >legislative correspondence; and supervising >Legislative Correspondents. Qualified >candidates will have experience advancing policy >proposals, excellent written and verbal >communication skills, and enjoy working in a >fast-paced, collaborative environment. Must >also have a sense of humor and be a team >player. Substantial experience in education >policy and prior Capitol Hill or Administration >experience preferred.Interested applicants >should send a single pdf document that includes >a cover letter, resume, and brief writing sample >(a maximum of three pages) >tojobs at feinstein.senate.gov >indicating the job referral number in the >subject line. The Office of Senator Dianne >Feinstein is an equal opportunity employer. > > > >Sent from my iPhone From nmpbrat at aol.com Tue Jul 11 04:07:02 2017 From: nmpbrat at aol.com (nmpbrat at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:07:02 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15d2fd4331a-6306-238a8@webprd-a24.mail.aol.com> Daniel, I don't know if this will help you or not. Here is a link to a Zoomtext Quick Reference Guide. http://www.aisquared.com/docs/zt10/ZT10_QRG_US_English.pdf Here is some info that might be of benefit to you: Background Reader allows you to listen to documents, webpages, email or any textwhile you simultaneously perform other tasks. You simply copy or select the text youwant to listen to and start Background Reader. While the text is being read aloud, youare free to type notes, browse the web or do other work on your computer.Starting Background ReaderThere are two ways to capture text when starting Background Reader. BackgroundReader can read text that you have copied to the Windows Clipboard or text that youhave selected in the active application. To read text from the Windows Clipboard 1. Select the text that you want to listen to and copy it to theWindows Clipboard. 2. Use one of the following methods to start Background Reader: 3. Press the Read Clipboard Text hotkey: CAPS LOCK + C. On the Tools toolbar, select BgRdr. The Background Reader toolbar appears and automatically startsreading the text you placed in the Windows Clipboard. To read text selected in the active application 1. Select the text you want to listen to. 2. Press the Read Selected Text hotkey: CAPS LOCK + S. The Background Reader toolbar appears and automatically starts reading the textyou selected in the active application. Note: If the toolbar does not appear when starting Background Reader the "Starttoolbar minimized" option has been selected in the Background Readersettings. To access and disable this setting; in the Tools menu, chooseBackground Reader…Operating Background ReaderOnce you have started Background Reader you can operate it using the toolbar or thehotkeys. The toolbar is an easy way to get started and learn how Background Readerworks. However, we highly recommend learning to use the hotkeys as they will allowyou to seamlessly control Background Reader while you are working in otherapplications (without having to switch back and forth) and realize the truemultitasking potential of Background Reader. To operate Background Reader using the toolbar 1. To start and stop reading, click the Play/Pause button. 2. To skim forward and backward, click the Sentence and Word buttons. 3. To restart reading at the beginning, click the Restart button. 4. To read new text that you have placed in the Windows Clipboard, click theCapture button. 5. To exit Background Reader, click the Exit button. To bring the Background Reader toolbar into viewWhen Background Reader is running you can bring its toolbar into view bypressing Caps Lock + T. To operate Background Reader using hotkeysBackground Reader can be fully operated using the Background Reader hotkeys.See "Background Reader Hotkeys" on page 79). Hotkeys are key combinations that execute ZoomText commands without having toactivate the ZoomText interface. Hotkeys exist for almost all ZoomText features,allowing you to control ZoomText while another application is active.Some important facts about ZoomText hotkeys are: Hotkeys can be changed or disabled to eliminate conflicts with other programs. Both keys and mouse buttons can be used to define a hotkey. Each hotkey must be unique.Each hotkey consists of one or more modifier keys and a single primary key. Themodifier keys consist of any combination of ALT, CTRL, SHIFT, CAPS LOCK and theWindows Key. The primary key can be any other key or any mouse button. To change hotkey settings 1. In the Settings menu, choose Hotkeys… 2. Select the desired Hotkey Group and Hotkey Command. 3. Adjust the hotkey combination as desired. 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for each hotkey you wish to modify. 5. Click the OK button. Background Reader Hotkeys (Magnifier/Reader only)Commands KeysBGR Read Clipboard Text CAPS LOCK + C BGR Read Selected Text CAPS LOCK + SBGR Play / Pause CAPS LOCK + ENTER BGR Restart (from the beginning) CAPS LOCK + BACKSPACE BGR Next Sentence CAPS LOCK + RIGHTBGR Current Sentence CAPS LOCK + SPACEBAR BGR Previous Sentence CAPS LOCK + LEFTBGR Next Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + RIGHT BGR Current Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + SPACEBAR BGR Previous Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + LEFT BGR Show Toolbar CAPS LOCK + T BGR Exit CAPS LOCK + ESC Hope something from this helps! Nicole -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Smyth via BlindLaw To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Daniel Smyth Sent: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 6:04 pm Subject: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question Greetings All, I am taking the NYS Bar in two weeks. I typically use Mac OS X's built in text-to-speech tool in my studies and day-to-day life. As I can't take the bar exam on a Mac I am using a laptop equipped with ZoomText Magnifier/Reader. I am having trouble setting it up to function any way similar to the Mac OS X text-to-speech tool. In sum, I would like to highlight text, push a command key, and have the text read to me. Does anyone have any experience setting up the software to work like that? Thank you all in advance. Sincerely, *Daniel E. Smyth, J.D.* *(917) 692-1978* _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/nmpbrat%40aol.com From chris.stewart at uky.edu Tue Jul 11 13:37:34 2017 From: chris.stewart at uky.edu (Stewart, Christopher K) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:37:34 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Responding to Zoom Text Question Message-ID: Hi Daniel, I'm just writing to ensure that the NY Bar Commissioners aren't making you use the testing software that testtakers typically use. My experience, consistent with other blind lawyers, is that this software is inaccessible with the JAWS screen reader, and I imagine there's a good chance it wouldn't be accessible with Zoomtext either. Good luck and happy studying! Best, Chris On 7/11/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote: > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question (Daniel Smyth) > 2. Fwd: Now accepting applications for fall 2017 Internships! > (David Andrews) > 3. Fwd: FW: Feinstein LA vacancy (David Andrews) > 4. Re: ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question (nmpbrat at aol.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:02:58 -0400 > From: Daniel Smyth > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Greetings All, > > I am taking the NYS Bar in two weeks. I typically use Mac OS X's built in > text-to-speech tool in my studies and day-to-day life. As I can't take the > bar exam on a Mac I am using a laptop equipped with ZoomText > Magnifier/Reader. I am having trouble setting it up to function any way > similar to the Mac OS X text-to-speech tool. > > In sum, I would like to highlight text, push a command key, and have the > text read to me. Does anyone have any experience setting up the software to > work like that? > > Thank you all in advance. > > Sincerely, > > *Daniel E. Smyth, J.D.* > *(917) 692-1978* > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:39:45 -0500 > From: David Andrews > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Fwd: Now accepting applications for fall 2017 > Internships! > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>From: "Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. >>Governor Tina Smith" >><dayton.media at state.mn.us> >>Date: Jul 10, 2017 5:06 PM >>Subject: Now accepting applications for fall 2017 Internships! >>To: <ddavis at blindinc.org> >>Cc: >> >> >>Calling all college and graduate students >> >> >> >> >>office of gov Dayton and Lt. governor Smith banner >> >> >> >> >>July 10, 2017 >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> >>Bookmark and Share >> >> >> >> >> >>Interns at the Office of Governor Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor >> >> >> >>Now accepting applications for fall 2017 >>internships at the Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. Governor Tina >> Smith >> >> >> >>Excited about state government? Intern with the >>Office of Governor Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor >>Tina Smith! This internship program affords >>students the opportunity to earn college credits >>and valuable professional experience. >> >>College and graduate students may apply. The >>program is offered year-round. Interns commit to >>at least 12 hours a week; schedules are flexible >>between the hours of 9am-5pm, Monday- Friday. >> >>The Governor's Office is now accepting >>applications for fall 2017.? The application >>deadline is August 2nd. Applicants will be >>contacted regarding the status of their application by August 14th. >> >>For more information and to apply, visit? >>https://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/internships/ >> >> >> >> >> >>Office of Governor Mark Dayton & Lt. Governor Tina Smith >> >>116 Veterans Service Building >> >>20 West 12th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55155 >> >>? >> >> >>facebook >> >> >>twitter >> >> >>you tube >> >> >>flicker >> >> >>rss >> >> >>? >> >>Please do not respond to this e-mail.? >>Contact >> >>the Governor's Office >> >>? ? SUBSCRIBER SERVICES >> >>Manage >> >>Preferences? |? ? >>Unsubscribe? >> >>? |? ? >>Help >> >>? >> >>This email was sent to >>ddavis at blindinc.org >>using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf >>of? the Office of the Governor? ?? 130 State >>Capitol? ?? 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. >>Blvd.? ??? Saint Paul, MN 55155 ?? 800-657-3717 >> >>GovDelivery logo >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Jobs mailing list >>Jobs at nfbnet.org >>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> Jobs: >>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:41:07 -0500 > From: David Andrews > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: [blindlaw] Fwd: FW: Feinstein LA vacancy > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > >> >>See below. >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>From: "Lewis, Anil" <ALewis at nfb.org> >>Date: Jul 10, 2017 6:29 PM >>Subject: FW: Feinstein LA vacancy >>To: "Dick Davis" <ddavis at blindinc.org> >>Cc: >> >>FYI >> >>? >> >>From: Jones, Roscoe (Feinstein) >>[mailto:Roscoe_Jones at feinstein.senate.gov] >> >> >>Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 10:23 AM >>To: Jones, Roscoe (Feinstein) >>Subject: Feinstein LA vacancy >> >>? >> >>Friends: >> >>? >> >>Senator Feinstein is looking for a Legislative >>Assistant to handle education, housing >>homelessness, and other issues.? Please >>circulate this posting around to your contacts >>and encourage interested candidates from diverse backgrounds to apply. ? >> >>? >> >>Best, >> >>Roscoe? >> >>? >> >>Roscoe Jones, Jr. >> >>Legislative Director? >> >>Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein? >> >>? >> >>? >> >>? >> >> >> >>? >> >>? >> >> >> >>223792 >> >>? >> >>LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT? -? >> >>Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seeks a >>Legislative Assistant to handle domestic policy >>issues related to education, housing, >>homelessness, human services, nutrition, arts >>and the humanities, and the Postal >>Service.? Responsibilities include advising the >>Senator on all matters under the issue portfolio >>both in California and at the national level; >>developing and advancing legislative proposals; >>analyzing legislation and drafting vote >>recommendations and talking points for floor >>proceedings; representing the Senator before >>constituents and stakeholders; reviewing >>legislative correspondence; and supervising >>Legislative Correspondents.? Qualified >>candidates will have experience advancing policy >>proposals, excellent written and verbal >>communication skills, and enjoy working in a >>fast-paced, collaborative environment.? Must >>also have a sense of humor and be a team >>player.? Substantial experience in education >>policy and prior Capitol Hill or Administration >>experience preferred.Interested applicants >>should send a single pdf document that includes >>a cover letter, resume, and brief writing sample >>(a maximum of three pages) >>tojobs at feinstein.senate.gov >>indicating the job referral number in the >>subject line.? The Office of Senator Dianne >>Feinstein is an equal opportunity employer. >> >> >> >>Sent from my iPhone > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:07:02 -0400 > From: nmpbrat at aol.com > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question > Message-ID: <15d2fd4331a-6306-238a8 at webprd-a24.mail.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Daniel, > I don't know if this will help you or not. Here is a link to a Zoomtext > Quick Reference Guide. > > http://www.aisquared.com/docs/zt10/ZT10_QRG_US_English.pdf > > > Here is some info that might be of benefit to you: > > > Background Reader allows you to listen to documents, webpages, email or any > textwhile you simultaneously perform other tasks. You simply copy or select > the text youwant to listen to and start Background Reader. While the text is > being read aloud, youare free to type notes, browse the web or do other work > on your computer.Starting Background ReaderThere are two ways to capture > text when starting Background Reader. BackgroundReader can read text that > you have copied to the Windows Clipboard or text that youhave selected in > the active application. > > To read text from the Windows Clipboard > 1. Select the text that you want to listen to and copy it to theWindows > Clipboard. > 2. Use one of the following methods to start Background Reader: > 3. Press the Read Clipboard Text hotkey: CAPS LOCK + C. > On the Tools toolbar, select BgRdr. The Background Reader toolbar appears > and automatically startsreading the text you placed in the Windows > Clipboard. > > To read text selected in the active application > 1. Select the text you want to listen to. > 2. Press the Read Selected Text hotkey: CAPS LOCK + S. > The Background Reader toolbar appears and automatically starts reading the > textyou selected in the active application. Note: If the toolbar does not > appear when starting Background Reader the "Starttoolbar minimized" option > has been selected in the Background Readersettings. To access and disable > this setting; in the Tools menu, chooseBackground Reader?Operating > Background ReaderOnce you have started Background Reader you can operate it > using the toolbar or thehotkeys. The toolbar is an easy way to get started > and learn how Background Readerworks. However, we highly recommend learning > to use the hotkeys as they will allowyou to seamlessly control Background > Reader while you are working in otherapplications (without having to switch > back and forth) and realize the truemultitasking potential of Background > Reader. > > > To operate Background Reader using the toolbar > 1. To start and stop reading, click the Play/Pause button. > 2. To skim forward and backward, click the Sentence and Word buttons. > 3. To restart reading at the beginning, click the Restart button. > 4. To read new text that you have placed in the Windows Clipboard, click > theCapture button. > 5. To exit Background Reader, click the Exit button. > To bring the Background Reader toolbar into viewWhen Background Reader is > running you can bring its toolbar into view bypressing Caps Lock + T. To > operate Background Reader using hotkeysBackground Reader can be fully > operated using the Background Reader hotkeys.See "Background Reader Hotkeys" > on page 79). > > > Hotkeys are key combinations that execute ZoomText commands without having > toactivate the ZoomText interface. Hotkeys exist for almost all ZoomText > features,allowing you to control ZoomText while another application is > active.Some important facts about ZoomText hotkeys are: Hotkeys can be > changed or disabled to eliminate conflicts with other programs. Both keys > and mouse buttons can be used to define a hotkey. Each hotkey must be > unique.Each hotkey consists of one or more modifier keys and a single > primary key. Themodifier keys consist of any combination of ALT, CTRL, > SHIFT, CAPS LOCK and theWindows Key. The primary key can be any other key or > any mouse button. To change hotkey settings > 1. In the Settings menu, choose Hotkeys? > 2. Select the desired Hotkey Group and Hotkey Command. > 3. Adjust the hotkey combination as desired. > 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for each hotkey you wish to modify. > 5. Click the OK button. > > > Background Reader Hotkeys (Magnifier/Reader only)Commands KeysBGR Read > Clipboard Text CAPS LOCK + C > BGR Read Selected Text CAPS LOCK + SBGR > Play / Pause CAPS LOCK + ENTER > BGR Restart (from the beginning) CAPS LOCK + BACKSPACE > BGR Next Sentence CAPS LOCK + RIGHTBGR > Current Sentence CAPS LOCK + SPACEBAR > BGR Previous Sentence CAPS LOCK + LEFTBGR > Next Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + RIGHT > BGR Current Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + SPACEBAR > BGR Previous Word CTRL + CAPS LOCK + LEFT > BGR Show Toolbar CAPS LOCK + T > BGR Exit CAPS LOCK + ESC > > > Hope something from this helps! > Nicole > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Smyth via BlindLaw > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Cc: Daniel Smyth > Sent: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 6:04 pm > Subject: [blindlaw] ZoomText Magnifier/Reader Question > > Greetings All, > > I am taking the NYS Bar in two weeks. I typically use Mac OS X's built in > text-to-speech tool in my studies and day-to-day life. As I can't take the > bar exam on a Mac I am using a laptop equipped with ZoomText > Magnifier/Reader. I am having trouble setting it up to function any way > similar to the Mac OS X text-to-speech tool. > > In sum, I would like to highlight text, push a command key, and have the > text read to me. Does anyone have any experience setting up the software to > work like that? > > Thank you all in advance. > > Sincerely, > > *Daniel E. Smyth, J.D.* > *(917) 692-1978* > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/nmpbrat%40aol.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 4 > **************************************** > -- Chris K. Stewart Ph: (502)457-1757 From mnowicki4 at icloud.com Thu Jul 13 01:40:55 2017 From: mnowicki4 at icloud.com (Michal Nowicki) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:40:55 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessibility of Adobe Pro Redaction Tool Message-ID: <0OT000BAPA0AIG30@st11p00im-asmtp003.me.com> Hi Everyone, I hope this message finds you all well. I am interning for the Chicago Transit Authority Law Department this summer, and as part of my internship, I am helping process a FOIA request. The CTA uses Adobe Acrobat’s redaction tool to redact content exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. Does anyone know if the redaction tool in Adobe Pro is accessible? I called FreedomScientific Tech Support, but no one there knows. I also called Adobe Support, but they don’t know either. Finally, I wasn’t able to find any information on the Internet. So, You are my last hope. Since I need to use the redaction tool for work, I would greatly appreciate any advice you can offer. Best, Michal Nowicki Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Jul 18 17:47:29 2017 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:47:29 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Article: Lawyer who filed hundreds of ADA suits barred from practice in Texas federal court for three years, ABA Journal, July 13, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/texas_lawyer_who_filed_hundreds_of_ada_suits_is_temporarily_barred_from_pra/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email Lawyer who filed hundreds of ADA suits barred from practice in Texas federal court for three years ABA Journal July 13, 2017 By Debra Cassens Weiss A lawyer in Austin, Texas, has been suspended from practice in a federal court for three years based on a finding he "unquestionably acted in bad faith" in six cases. Omar W. Rosales has filed 385 lawsuits against small businesses for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but his actions in the six cases led to his suspension from practice in the Western District of Texas, report KXAN.com and the Austin American-Statesman. Before seeking readmission to the court, Rosales will have to take ethics training and anger management courses, according to the ruling on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge David Ezra. Rosales was accused of altering an email to make it look like he had responded to the opposing counsel's email about setting up depositions. He was also accused of making inflammatory comments about the opposing lawyer, including that he "treats Hispanics like servants and noble savages that need his superlative help and guidance." Rosales had claimed the fabricated email was sent in error, but he provided no evidence to support that claim, Ezra said. Rosales also filed a criminal complaint of a "terroristic threat" against the opposing counsel and sought a restraining order based on the opposing counsel's alleged "erratic" stalking. There was no evidence supporting either claim by Rosales, Ezra said. "By clear and convincing evidence," Ezra wrote, "the record overwhelmingly supports a finding that Rosales' bad faith conduct in these matters has been brazenly dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent." The opposing counsel, Jim Harrington, told the American-Statesman he believed a three-year suspension from practice in the district court is too light. Though Harrington had previously filed ADA cases against businesses, he had told KXAN he decided to defend businesses pro bono in some of Rosales' suits to defend the integrity of the ADA. Harrington told KXAN he would give businesses a chance to fix ADA problems before suing; several business owners said they didn't get that opportunity in Rosales' suits. Rosales sent demand letters to businesses wanting $7,000 and warning their litigation costs could top $100,000 if they fought the suits, according to KXAN. All of the suits were filed on behalf of one plaintiff. Last December, Rosales was also fined nearly $176,000 for his behavior. Rosales released this statement on his suspension to the American-Statesman: "In Austin, if you are black or disabled you have no civil rights. So, we will take this case to the 5th Circuit, to once again review the decisions of the all-white, all-male judges in Austin federal court. How is it, that in 2017, all the federal judges in Austin are white males?" Hat tip to Law360. From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Jul 18 19:11:42 2017 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 19:11:42 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Article: Serial ADA suits operated like 'a carnival shell game, ' depriving plaintiff of proceeds, judge says, ABA Journal, July 13, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/serial_ada_suits_operated_like_a_carnival_shell_game_depriving_plaintiff_of/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email Serial ADA suits operated like 'a carnival shell game,' depriving plaintiff of proceeds, judge says ABA Journal July 13, 2017 By Debra Cassens Weiss Ninety-nine lawsuits claiming New Mexico businesses violated the Americans with Disabilities Act should be tossed, according to a recommendation by a federal magistrate judge. Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Molzen said the "boilerplate complaints" were primarily filed for an improper purpose and they should be tossed under standards for in forma pauperis cases, in which the plaintiff seeks to avoid prepayment of the filing fee. The Denver Channel and ABC 15 covered her recommended disposition (PDF). The lawyer who filed the cases and the company that funded them are apparently "using the judicial process to harass defendants into settlements to obtain financial gain .... and not to remedy ADA violations," Molzen said. The complaints were largely the same, with the exception of information-plagued with misspellings-that identified the defendant business and briefly described the alleged violations, Molzen said. Molzen said the cases should be dismissed, but the full amount of the filing fees should still be due the court. The court should retain jurisdiction in the cases to address any counterclaims by the businesses for abuse of process, Molzen added. Lawyer Sharon Pomeranz of Santa Fe filed the 99 cases on behalf of one plaintiff, Alyssa Carton, who has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair. Carton became the plaintiff after responding to a Craigslist ad purportedly placed by a litigation funding company called Litigation Management and Financial Services, Molzen said. Similar cases have been filed in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, according to the Denver Channel, and all apparently have ties to the funding company and a related entity. Carton's agreement with the funding company required her to keep the contract confidential, a provision that helped the company evade its obligation to pay filing fees by claiming Carton couldn't afford to pay, Molzen said. Pomeranz also had an agreement with the funding company requiring her to reimburse it for its "staff work," including a driver who took Carton to the business sites. It appears Pomeranz made little effort to ensure there was evidentiary support for allegations in the complaints, and made little effort to ensure that Carton agreed with the allegations, according to Molzen. Carton's agreement with the funding company said she would be paid $50 for each lawsuit filed, she would be entitled to "remaining proceeds" of successful claims, and she gave LMFS complete authorization to negotiate and accept settlement offers. Carton's agreement with Pomeranz, however, said the attorney fee for each case would be $100, and the lawyer would receive "100 percent of the monetary recovery" in settlements. Carton believed she would receive money when the cases settled, but she gave up any proceeds in the agreement with the lawyer, Molzen pointed out. "Thus, as in a carnival shell game, Ms. Carton's expectation for receiving any settlement proceeds was illusory," Molzen said. Pomeranz did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email requesting comment. From lizmohnke at hotmail.com Fri Jul 21 17:05:29 2017 From: lizmohnke at hotmail.com (Elizabeth Mohnke) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:05:29 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Seeking advocacy assistance for college accommodations Message-ID: Hello all, Last semester I was denied accommodations for a math class. When I contacted the national Center, I was advised to file an official complaint with my college. However, I found it rather difficult to complete the complaint form on my own, and the national office was not willing to provide any assistance in helping me Phil out the complaint form. So I have not done anything to follow up with the lack of accommodations I received last semester as I had a difficult time keeping up with my classes when I got sick during the second half of the semester. I would like to be able to continue taking classes so I can complete my degree even though I've been told that it will most likely not mean anything. However, I am not quite sure how to go about receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Since I do not know Braille very well, or how to make a computer read all of the math symbols, I have found that using a reader for my math classes works the best for me. However, last semester my disabilities office provided me with a reader Who was not qualified to read math, and would not allow me to use any other reader besides the one they had a sign to me including my own reader, so I was forced to drop my math class due to a lack of accommodations. I am not completely sure where to go from here in terms of being able to receive the accommodations I need for my math classes. I have been told that the dean of students would like to talk to me. But I am not completely sure what to say to her, and I do not feel comfortable meeting with her on my own. The college has a past history of being rather hostile and aggressive towards me. So I do not feel comfortable meeting with people at my college on my own when I am not completely sure what the purpose of the meeting is supposed to be. Anyway, if there is anyone out there Who would be willing to help me receive the accommodations I need for my math classes, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you off list. I feel as though I have not had much success in contacting individual people, so I thought I would send out a mass email to see if this might help me find someone who is willing and able to help provide me with some advocacy assistance and receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Thanks, Elizabeth Sent from my iPhone From ALewis at nfb.org Fri Jul 21 17:38:25 2017 From: ALewis at nfb.org (Lewis, Anil) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:38:25 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Seeking advocacy assistance for college accommodations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Elizabeth: Unfortunately, our national office does not have the resources to help all individuals file complaints, but I may be able to help you find some local assistance. It would be helpful if you let me know what school you are attending, and in what state? Have you reached out to your local affiliate for help? Have you asked anyone in the DSS office to assist you file the complaint? Anil Anil Lewis, M.P.A. Executive Director 200 East Wells Street, Baltimore, MD 21230 (410) 659-9314, Ext. 2374 | alewis at nfb.org Twitter: @AnilLife The National Federation of the Blind is a community of members and friends who believe in the hopes and dreams of the nation's blind. Every day we work together to help blind people live the lives they want. -----Original Message----- From: NABS-L [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Mohnke via NABS-L Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 1:05 PM To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List; National Association of Blind Students mailing list; Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Elizabeth Mohnke Subject: [nabs-l] Seeking advocacy assistance for college accommodations Hello all, Last semester I was denied accommodations for a math class. When I contacted the national Center, I was advised to file an official complaint with my college. However, I found it rather difficult to complete the complaint form on my own, and the national office was not willing to provide any assistance in helping me Phil out the complaint form. So I have not done anything to follow up with the lack of accommodations I received last semester as I had a difficult time keeping up with my classes when I got sick during the second half of the semester. I would like to be able to continue taking classes so I can complete my degree even though I've been told that it will most likely not mean anything. However, I am not quite sure how to go about receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Since I do not know Braille very well, or how to make a computer read all of the math symbols, I have found that using a reader for my math classes works the best for me. However, last semester my disabilities office provided me with a reader Who was not qualified to read math, and would not allow me to use any other reader besides the one they had a sign to me including my own reader, so I was forced to drop my math class due to a lack of accommodations. I am not completely sure where to go from here in terms of being able to receive the accommodations I need for my math classes. I have been told that the dean of students would like to talk to me. But I am not completely sure what to say to her, and I do not feel comfortable meeting with her on my own. The college has a past history of being rather hostile and aggressive towards me. So I do not feel comfortable meeting with people at my college on my own when I am not completely sure what the purpose of the meeting is supposed to be. Anyway, if there is anyone out there Who would be willing to help me receive the accommodations I need for my math classes, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you off list. I feel as though I have not had much success in contacting individual people, so I thought I would send out a mass email to see if this might help me find someone who is willing and able to help provide me with some advocacy assistance and receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Thanks, Elizabeth Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ NABS-L mailing list NABS-L at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NABS-L: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/alewis%40nfb.org Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website. From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Fri Jul 21 19:44:57 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:44:57 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] FW: Job Opportunity in the Trial Court - 7/21/17 In-Reply-To: <1128444523837.1116406273370.1470612392.0.181436JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1128444523837.1116406273370.1470612392.0.181436JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <008c01d30259$d5cbe250$8163a6f0$@labarrelaw.com> From: Trial Court HR Department [mailto:hr.department at jud.state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 12:37 PM To: slabarre at labarrelaw.com Subject: Job Opportunity in the Trial Court - 7/21/17 The Massachusetts Trial Court has new job openings. Thank you for your interest in the Massachusetts Trial Court Job Opportunities. Please share the following new Massachusetts Trial Court job opportunities with your organization: * Office of the Commissioner of Probation - Probation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) Coordinator closing on 07/23/17 * Middlesex Probate & Family Court - Sessions Clerk Series closing on 07/23/17 * Hampden Superior Court - Case Specialist closing on 07/23/17 * Middlesex Probate & Family Court - Senior Court Clinician closing on 08/01/17 All current Job Postings and instructions on how to apply online can be found at: https://careers-trialcourtsofmass.icims.com/jobs/intro. The Trial Court is also announcing today the open registration for the Court Officer Entrance Exam. Please visit: http://www.mass.gov/courts/jobs/court-officer-exam-info.html for the complete exam announcement. Frequently Asked Questions on how to apply. Please note the Trial Court has an online application process. Paper, faxed, or emailed applications or resumes are not accepted. www.mass.gov/courts The Massachusetts Judicial Branch is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Massachusetts Trial Court Human Resources Department matrialcourtjobs at jud.state.ma.us Forward this email This email was sent to slabarre at labarrelaw.com by hr.department at jud.state.ma.us | Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe ™ | Privacy Policy . Trial Court Communications | John Adams Courthouse | One Pemberton Square | Boston | MA | 02108 From ebob824 at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 23:32:57 2017 From: ebob824 at gmail.com (Bob Evans) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 01:32:57 +0200 Subject: [blindlaw] Americanisation defiance act Message-ID: Hello, this is Bob Evans. What are the southern states? South of the United States is the region of the United States lying to the south of the Mason Dixon line. It had seceded from the United States in 1861. So, who are we talking about when we say southerners? The United States Census Bureau identifies 16 states as part of the American South, and these states are divided into three smaller regions. The South Atlantic includes Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Delaware. The East South Central region is composed of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. The west South central region includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. The southern region is immensely filled with nescience, prejudice, ethical inversion, insolence and pride. There are many people in this area whom unfortunately, never went to college and thence, are susceptible to smoothly be fooled and indoctrinated. Those are mostly southern Protestants who are addicted to television and propaganda. They are into these detrimental factors more than edification. The southern region resembles the core of Americaan isolation crisis. They typically overuse improper expressions in casual conversations. They are into absonant rhetoric, racial disparity and disgrace. Southern evangelists are mythically stereotyped about Islam. They tend to influentially dominate their sickly cozened audience with venomously insidious notions. Those are the ones who preposterously brought this swine to oval office. This archfiend is miserably rapscallion, racialist, bigoted, unreliable, unconscionable, propagandist, dishonourable, misanthrope, misogynist, fanatic, uprooter, petulant, megalomanic, arrogant, hilarious, scurrilous, scoundrel, cantankerous, prurient, poltroon, flamboyant, aweless, dissembler, buffoonish and a direly warmonger. What is the motive behind American evangelists endorsement of Donald Trump? First off, he concurs with their vicious perspective of demonising the Muslim world. Second, he is a pro Zionist protagonist and they endearingly adore him for that. It is crucial to plainly recognise what type of enemy we are dealing with. They do not intend to decease dogmatising against our heritage. Their spiritual executives insist to deliberately misrepresent and distort our faith. It is no longer estimable to be a greencard bearer. As we closely bear witness nowadays, the United States alleged reputation and counterfeit sovereignty are hastily on the decline, they gravely diminish. Their declared war against us is conspicuously notorious. It is a Judeo Christian coalition against Islam. If someone thinks otherwise, he is basically absurd and naive. I proudly proclaim my repudiation of americanising the world, it is a disposed project. And as for their imbecilic liberty, it is the primal deceit of our contemporary era. Through their capitalistic tenets, Americans subsided the world into an ocean of sempiternal crises. Thank you for reading, Bob From dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 22 00:37:06 2017 From: dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net (Daniel McBride) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 19:37:06 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Americanisation defiance act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048f01d30282$a6b3ed90$f41bc8b0$@sbcglobal.net> Bob: If I had not known otherwise, I would have read your post believing that you were describing every politician in Washington, D.C., - White House, Senate and House of Representatives - who have possessed our Federal Government from the day I was born in 1955, republican, democrat and independent alike. Washington D.C. is rotten to the core, has been for a very long time and there is no end in sight. Thank you for so adequately painting the inhabitants of Washington, District of Criminals for what they are. Daniel McBride Fort Worth, Texas P.S. I am born and raised in Texas and I am none of the things you describe above. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans via BlindLaw Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 6:33 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Cc: Bob Evans Subject: [blindlaw] Americanisation defiance act Hello, this is Bob Evans. What are the southern states? South of the United States is the region of the United States lying to the south of the Mason Dixon line. It had seceded from the United States in 1861. So, who are we talking about when we say southerners? The United States Census Bureau identifies 16 states as part of the American South, and these states are divided into three smaller regions. The South Atlantic includes Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Delaware. The East South Central region is composed of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. The west South central region includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. The southern region is immensely filled with nescience, prejudice, ethical inversion, insolence and pride. There are many people in this area whom unfortunately, never went to college and thence, are susceptible to smoothly be fooled and indoctrinated. Those are mostly southern Protestants who are addicted to television and propaganda. They are into these detrimental factors more than edification. The southern region resembles the core of Americaan isolation crisis. They typically overuse improper expressions in casual conversations. They are into absonant rhetoric, racial disparity and disgrace. Southern evangelists are mythically stereotyped about Islam. They tend to influentially dominate their sickly cozened audience with venomously insidious notions. Those are the ones who preposterously brought this swine to oval office. This archfiend is miserably rapscallion, racialist, bigoted, unreliable, unconscionable, propagandist, dishonourable, misanthrope, misogynist, fanatic, uprooter, petulant, megalomanic, arrogant, hilarious, scurrilous, scoundrel, cantankerous, prurient, poltroon, flamboyant, aweless, dissembler, buffoonish and a direly warmonger. What is the motive behind American evangelists endorsement of Donald Trump? First off, he concurs with their vicious perspective of demonising the Muslim world. Second, he is a pro Zionist protagonist and they endearingly adore him for that. It is crucial to plainly recognise what type of enemy we are dealing with. They do not intend to decease dogmatising against our heritage. Their spiritual executives insist to deliberately misrepresent and distort our faith. It is no longer estimable to be a greencard bearer. As we closely bear witness nowadays, the United States alleged reputation and counterfeit sovereignty are hastily on the decline, they gravely diminish. Their declared war against us is conspicuously notorious. It is a Judeo Christian coalition against Islam. If someone thinks otherwise, he is basically absurd and naive. I proudly proclaim my repudiation of americanising the world, it is a disposed project. And as for their imbecilic liberty, it is the primal deceit of our contemporary era. Through their capitalistic tenets, Americans subsided the world into an ocean of sempiternal crises. Thank you for reading, Bob _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net From ckrugman at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 22 05:29:57 2017 From: ckrugman at sbcglobal.net (Charles Krugman) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 22:29:57 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Seeking advocacy assistance for college accommodations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01d302ab$8fc3bfb0$af4b3f10$@sbcglobal.net> Here in California our state affiliate has provided people to meet with and intervene with students and their respective colleges when advocacy is needed as you say you want someone to meet with the dean with you to attempt to resolve issues. As we have communicated in the past and I suggested Michigan Protection and Advocacy services and again it might be worth contacting them for help. Chuck Krugman, MSW Paralegal 1237 P Street Fresno ca 93721 559-266-9237 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Mohnke via BlindLaw Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:05 AM To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List ; National Association of Blind Students mailing list ; Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Elizabeth Mohnke Subject: [blindlaw] Seeking advocacy assistance for college accommodations Hello all, Last semester I was denied accommodations for a math class. When I contacted the national Center, I was advised to file an official complaint with my college. However, I found it rather difficult to complete the complaint form on my own, and the national office was not willing to provide any assistance in helping me Phil out the complaint form. So I have not done anything to follow up with the lack of accommodations I received last semester as I had a difficult time keeping up with my classes when I got sick during the second half of the semester. I would like to be able to continue taking classes so I can complete my degree even though I've been told that it will most likely not mean anything. However, I am not quite sure how to go about receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Since I do not know Braille very well, or how to make a computer read all of the math symbols, I have found that using a reader for my math classes works the best for me. However, last semester my disabilities office provided me with a reader Who was not qualified to read math, and would not allow me to use any other reader besides the one they had a sign to me including my own reader, so I was forced to drop my math class due to a lack of accommodations. I am not completely sure where to go from here in terms of being able to receive the accommodations I need for my math classes. I have been told that the dean of students would like to talk to me. But I am not completely sure what to say to her, and I do not feel comfortable meeting with her on my own. The college has a past history of being rather hostile and aggressive towards me. So I do not feel comfortable meeting with people at my college on my own when I am not completely sure what the purpose of the meeting is supposed to be. Anyway, if there is anyone out there Who would be willing to help me receive the accommodations I need for my math classes, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you off list. I feel as though I have not had much success in contacting individual people, so I thought I would send out a mass email to see if this might help me find someone who is willing and able to help provide me with some advocacy assistance and receiving the accommodations I need for my math classes. Thanks, Elizabeth Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.n et From ebob824 at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 13:03:38 2017 From: ebob824 at gmail.com (Bob Evans) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 Subject: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. Your ministry doesn’t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump’s damnable era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > Hello Mostafa: > > Thank you for your email. > > Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > > Sincerely, > Larry Wilson > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> From: Mostafa, technically Bob >> Subject: Original Sin >> >> Visitor's Message: >> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I used >> to >> be called so when I worked at an American call centre here in Cairo. So, >> it >> is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I’ll present the Christian >> narrative of Original Sin in addition to posing crucial queries and >> denotative rebuttals. What is Original Sin in Christianity? It is a sin >> said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve >> sinned, >> death entered to the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem >> humanity. He then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This >> account may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it >> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with >> imperfection. It doesn’t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because >> according >> to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to redeem. At its >> inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. First, has Adam been >> destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he committed his ever first >> sin, why hasn’t he been given one chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate >> from the tree of knowing good and evil, he became like God according to >> Genesis. A question here, has he been punished because he became aware of >> good and evil? It is assumed that he didn’t know good and evil until he >> ate >> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an >> innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed >> adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they >> have >> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of >> Original >> Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how >> could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the >> right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. And, if he wanted to forgive >> me, could he still retaliate? No, he surely couldn’t. It’s either >> forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn’t be both. And as for Christ, how >> could an innocent bear the guilty’s iniquity? According to traditional >> Christian theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. >> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, he >> had >> to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who paid for >> this. >> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, he >> died >> for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if you think of >> it a bit. Jesus’s date of Crucifixion and resurrection differs from >> gospel >> to another. Please, don’t take my word for this. I urge you to just check >> John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most Christians today believe that Jesus >> died on a Friday afternoon and risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As >> for Adventists, they do not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath >> held on Saturday. Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably >> exposed. I urge southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder >> on >> the scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we >> were >> contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn’t Jesus die >> forever then? I believe that my points are critical and thus, they >> deserve >> thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely on the thought that >> someone theoretically died for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. >> We >> bear witness western Christians who basically don’t care about what they >> do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume alcoholic >> beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. Where is your >> devotional consignment? Religious life is the last thing a lay western >> Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask you to ponder on your >> religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what prevents me from having a >> girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion which holds me fully >> accountable >> for either righteous or vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so >> tolerant with the culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit >> relationships? As you can see, despite the concept’s fraudulently >> emotional >> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable >> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole faith is >> based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees >> with this statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of >> Crucifixion and Redemption be presented without basing it on the >> Christian >> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend >> to >> deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute >> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, they >> have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to refrain from >> using >> fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just makes their stance quite >> attenuated and thus, susceptible to easily crumble under critical >> scrutiny. I am prepared to be christened if someone convinced me with >> plain >> reasonableness that what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit >> to >> Christian portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince >> someone >> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For >> some >> reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if someone >> worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is quite perturbing >> to conjointly destine our whole human species to hell for no fault of >> its >> own. However, some pastors tend to baffle between holding the innocent >> versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. Pastor >> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held >> accountable. >> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who >> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass Muslim >> offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held accountable >> for >> any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim clerics caused hate >> because of their radical speech, they are wholly held accountable for any >> erupted tension in the community. So, statutorily, instigants are >> equally >> held accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely >> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely beguile men, >> she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. >> It >> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the >> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. >> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical criticism. >> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are going >> to >> heaven. I wouldn’t ever assure I am going to heaven unless with >> providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I ever >> thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts with >> enjoined >> humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote ourselves to doing >> good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to establish a mutually >> deferential dialog with southern pastors. Nevertheless, they failed to >> comply to this. Their level of timidity did not match with my >> expectations. >> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an >> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First off, >> you >> desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. Moreover, your >> prejudicial notion doesn’t do more than substantiating your unprecedented >> nescience. If Original Sin wasn’t the fundamental belief of Christianity, >> it would have not been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly >> postulate this theological conversation because I am quite interested in >> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. I >> challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would have >> not >> ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone died in the >> cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as we saw, it has >> many >> defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately rational disposal. I >> await >> to hear pastoral response. But please, we do not need to either >> equivocate >> nor unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be >> simplified >> in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has >> intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, >> technically Bob Evans. >> >> -- >> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America >> Seminars >> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) >> > From chris.stewart at uky.edu Mon Jul 24 15:21:31 2017 From: chris.stewart at uky.edu (Stewart, Christopher K) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:21:31 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Message-ID: Hello All, I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is originating? Best, Chris On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote: > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > From: Bob Evans > To: wuas at wake-up.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: >> Hello Mostafa: >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. >> >> Sincerely, >> Larry Wilson >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: >> >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob >>> Subject: Original Sin >>> >>> Visitor's Message: >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I used >>> to >>> be called so when I worked at an American call centre here in Cairo. So, >>> it >>> is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll present the Christian >>> narrative of Original Sin in addition to posing crucial queries and >>> denotative rebuttals. What is Original Sin in Christianity? It is a sin >>> said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve >>> sinned, >>> death entered to the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem >>> humanity. He then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This >>> account may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with >>> imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because >>> according >>> to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to redeem. At its >>> inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. First, has Adam been >>> destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he committed his ever first >>> sin, why hasn?t he been given one chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil, he became like God according to >>> Genesis. A question here, has he been punished because he became aware >>> of >>> good and evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he >>> ate >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an >>> innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed >>> adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they >>> have >>> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of >>> Original >>> Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, >>> how >>> could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the >>> right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. And, if he wanted to forgive >>> me, could he still retaliate? No, he surely couldn?t. It?s either >>> forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how >>> could an innocent bear the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional >>> Christian theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, he >>> had >>> to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who paid for >>> this. >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, he >>> died >>> for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if you think >>> of >>> it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and resurrection differs from >>> gospel >>> to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. I urge you to just >>> check >>> John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most Christians today believe that Jesus >>> died on a Friday afternoon and risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As >>> for Adventists, they do not believe in this. They even have their >>> Sabbath >>> held on Saturday. Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably >>> exposed. I urge southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder >>> on >>> the scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we >>> were >>> contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn?t Jesus >>> die >>> forever then? I believe that my points are critical and thus, they >>> deserve >>> thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely on the thought that >>> someone theoretically died for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. >>> We >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about what they >>> do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume alcoholic >>> beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. Where is your >>> devotional consignment? Religious life is the last thing a lay western >>> Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask you to ponder on your >>> religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what prevents me from having a >>> girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion which holds me fully >>> accountable >>> for either righteous or vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so >>> tolerant with the culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit >>> relationships? As you can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently >>> emotional >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole faith is >>> based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees >>> with this statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of >>> Crucifixion and Redemption be presented without basing it on the >>> Christian >>> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend >>> to >>> deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, they >>> have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to refrain from >>> using >>> fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just makes their stance quite >>> attenuated and thus, susceptible to easily crumble under critical >>> scrutiny. I am prepared to be christened if someone convinced me with >>> plain >>> reasonableness that what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit >>> to >>> Christian portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince >>> someone >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For >>> some >>> reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if someone >>> worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is quite perturbing >>> to conjointly destine our whole human species to hell for no fault of >>> its >>> own. However, some pastors tend to baffle between holding the innocent >>> versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. >>> Pastor >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held >>> accountable. >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass >>> Muslim >>> offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held accountable >>> for >>> any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim clerics caused hate >>> because of their radical speech, they are wholly held accountable for >>> any >>> erupted tension in the community. So, statutorily, instigants are >>> equally >>> held accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely beguile >>> men, >>> she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. >>> It >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical >>> criticism. >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are going >>> to >>> heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven unless with >>> providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I ever >>> thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts with >>> enjoined >>> humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote ourselves to doing >>> good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to establish a mutually >>> deferential dialog with southern pastors. Nevertheless, they failed to >>> comply to this. Their level of timidity did not match with my >>> expectations. >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First off, >>> you >>> desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. Moreover, your >>> prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than substantiating your >>> unprecedented >>> nescience. If Original Sin wasn?t the fundamental belief of >>> Christianity, >>> it would have not been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I >>> civilly >>> postulate this theological conversation because I am quite interested in >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. I >>> challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would have >>> not >>> ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone died in the >>> cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as we saw, it has >>> many >>> defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately rational disposal. I >>> await >>> to hear pastoral response. But please, we do not need to either >>> equivocate >>> nor unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be >>> simplified >>> in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has >>> intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, >>> technically Bob Evans. >>> >>> -- >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America >>> Seminars >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > **************************************** > -- Chris K. Stewart Ph: (502)457-1757 From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Mon Jul 24 17:53:15 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:53:15 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] NFB Member needing PI attorney licensed in Kentucky Message-ID: <020401d304a5$ba218430$2e648c90$@labarrelaw.com> Greetings, a member of the NFB has contacted me about a personal injury matter which occurred in Kentucky. I know virtually nothing about the merits of the case but the injuries were substantial enough to warrant surgery and extended rehab. I you yourself are interested or have a recommendation, please email me off line so that I can pass this along to the individual. Thanks so much. Scott slabarre at labarrelaw.com From lmendez716 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 18:53:37 2017 From: lmendez716 at gmail.com (Luis Mendez) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:53:37 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. Luis. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Stewart, Christopher K Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello All, I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is originating? Best, Chris On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote: > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > From: Bob Evans > To: wuas at wake-up.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: >> Hello Mostafa: >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. >> >> Sincerely, >> Larry Wilson >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: >> >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob >>> Subject: Original Sin >>> >>> Visitor's Message: >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to the >>> world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He then >>> sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account may >>> ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it contains >>> major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with >>> imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because >>> according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to >>> redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he >>> committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one chance to >>> repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing good and evil, >>> he became like God according to Genesis. A question here, has he >>> been punished because he became aware of good and evil? It is >>> assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate from the tree >>> of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an innocent? And >>> as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed adultery, >>> could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they have >>> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of >>> Original Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid >>> to redeem, how could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded >>> someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn?t >>> be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear the guilty?s >>> iniquity? According to traditional Christian theology, death entered >>> to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, >>> he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who >>> paid for this. >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if >>> you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and resurrection >>> differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn?t >>> Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are critical and >>> thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely >>> on the thought that someone theoretically died for my sins and then, >>> go do whatever I want. >>> We >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about what >>> they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume >>> alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask >>> you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what >>> prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion >>> which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or vicious >>> deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the culture of >>> boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you can see, >>> despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional prettification, it is >>> besieged with numerously irreconcilable discrepancies. This is the >>> primary tenet upon which your whole faith is based, this is indeed >>> the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees with this >>> statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of Crucifixion >>> and Redemption be presented without basing it on the Christian >>> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not >>> intend to deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians >>> have absolute right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their >>> faith. Yes, they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge >>> them to refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It >>> just makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone to >>> become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For >>> some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if >>> someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is >>> quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species to >>> hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to baffle >>> between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either >>> instigants or actual actors. >>> Pastor >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held >>> accountable. >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim >>> clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they are wholly >>> held accountable for any erupted tension in the community. So, >>> statutorily, instigants are equally held accountable just as actual >>> actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely gorgeous wore a staggeringly >>> provocative outfit to purposely beguile men, she is partly held >>> accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. >>> It >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical >>> criticism. >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven unless >>> with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I >>> ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts >>> with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote >>> ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to >>> establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of timidity >>> did not match with my expectations. >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin wasn?t >>> the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not been used >>> to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate this >>> theological conversation because I am quite interested in >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would >>> have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone >>> died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as >>> we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately >>> rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral response. But please, we >>> do not need to either equivocate nor unconscionably philosophise the >>> matter. It rather has to be simplified in a rationally >>> straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has intemperately >>> fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, >>> technically Bob Evans. >>> >>> -- >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America >>> Seminars >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > **************************************** > -- Chris K. Stewart Ph: (502)457-1757 _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com From njaskins at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 19:15:32 2017 From: njaskins at gmail.com (Nicole Askins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:15:32 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear mr. Evans, Thank you for making it clear that that's not your true name. Because just as your name is hidden so is your awareness of anything related to Christianity and the faith there in I read thoroughly through your religious diatribe. I pondered you're arrogant religious assertions. It was very hard to take seriously. I won't go into detail. But I will say first, this is a listserv dedicated to assisting individuals who are blind and have low vision. This is certainly not the place for you to so arrogantly spew your assertions about your religious ideology over another's. Completely out of line. Moreover, for you too so arrogantly suggest that your practice of faith is somehow Superior to any others is ludicrous. You know nothing about the tenets of Christianity. You know nothing about the behavior patterns of Western people. And I know that because of all that you spewed here within this list serve. Quite frankly I'm not just offended by your statement I am disgusted. Lastly, it is quite evident for me to conclude that your practice of religion is just that. Legalism. Religiosity. And has no impact on your personal Behavior, love kindness acceptance forgiveness and other practical practices of a spiritual person clearly escapes you. The reason why no one wants to go toe-to-toe with you to debate your diluted ideology is because time is too precious of a thing to spend one such foolishness. Perhaps, you should reflect on why you are thirsting 4 argumentation and validation. If you are so secure with your religious superiority, why do you need to pontificate? Perhaps you're still thirsty for something more. On Jul 22, 2017 9:08 AM, "Bob Evans via BlindLaw" wrote: > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > Your ministry doesn’t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump’s damnable > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > kindly, keep me notified > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > > Hello Mostafa: > > > > Thank you for your email. > > > > Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > > So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > > > > Sincerely, > > Larry Wilson > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > > postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > > > >> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >> Subject: Original Sin > >> > >> Visitor's Message: > >> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I used > >> to > >> be called so when I worked at an American call centre here in Cairo. So, > >> it > >> is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I’ll present the Christian > >> narrative of Original Sin in addition to posing crucial queries and > >> denotative rebuttals. What is Original Sin in Christianity? It is a sin > >> said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve > >> sinned, > >> death entered to the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem > >> humanity. He then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This > >> account may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with > >> imperfection. It doesn’t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because > >> according > >> to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to redeem. At its > >> inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. First, has Adam been > >> destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he committed his ever first > >> sin, why hasn’t he been given one chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate > >> from the tree of knowing good and evil, he became like God according to > >> Genesis. A question here, has he been punished because he became aware of > >> good and evil? It is assumed that he didn’t know good and evil until he > >> ate > >> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an > >> innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed > >> adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they > >> have > >> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of > >> Original > >> Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how > >> could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the > >> right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. And, if he wanted to forgive > >> me, could he still retaliate? No, he surely couldn’t. It’s either > >> forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn’t be both. And as for Christ, how > >> could an innocent bear the guilty’s iniquity? According to traditional > >> Christian theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, he > >> had > >> to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who paid for > >> this. > >> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, he > >> died > >> for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if you think of > >> it a bit. Jesus’s date of Crucifixion and resurrection differs from > >> gospel > >> to another. Please, don’t take my word for this. I urge you to just check > >> John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most Christians today believe that Jesus > >> died on a Friday afternoon and risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As > >> for Adventists, they do not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath > >> held on Saturday. Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably > >> exposed. I urge southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder > >> on > >> the scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >> were > >> contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn’t Jesus die > >> forever then? I believe that my points are critical and thus, they > >> deserve > >> thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely on the thought that > >> someone theoretically died for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >> We > >> bear witness western Christians who basically don’t care about what they > >> do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume alcoholic > >> beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. Where is your > >> devotional consignment? Religious life is the last thing a lay western > >> Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask you to ponder on your > >> religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what prevents me from having a > >> girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion which holds me fully > >> accountable > >> for either righteous or vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so > >> tolerant with the culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit > >> relationships? As you can see, despite the concept’s fraudulently > >> emotional > >> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole faith is > >> based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees > >> with this statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of > >> Crucifixion and Redemption be presented without basing it on the > >> Christian > >> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend > >> to > >> deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, they > >> have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to refrain from > >> using > >> fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just makes their stance quite > >> attenuated and thus, susceptible to easily crumble under critical > >> scrutiny. I am prepared to be christened if someone convinced me with > >> plain > >> reasonableness that what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit > >> to > >> Christian portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince > >> someone > >> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For > >> some > >> reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if someone > >> worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is quite perturbing > >> to conjointly destine our whole human species to hell for no fault of > >> its > >> own. However, some pastors tend to baffle between holding the innocent > >> versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. Pastor > >> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >> accountable. > >> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass Muslim > >> offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held accountable > >> for > >> any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim clerics caused hate > >> because of their radical speech, they are wholly held accountable for any > >> erupted tension in the community. So, statutorily, instigants are > >> equally > >> held accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely beguile men, > >> she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >> It > >> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. > >> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical criticism. > >> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are going > >> to > >> heaven. I wouldn’t ever assure I am going to heaven unless with > >> providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I ever > >> thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts with > >> enjoined > >> humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote ourselves to doing > >> good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to establish a mutually > >> deferential dialog with southern pastors. Nevertheless, they failed to > >> comply to this. Their level of timidity did not match with my > >> expectations. > >> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First off, > >> you > >> desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. Moreover, your > >> prejudicial notion doesn’t do more than substantiating your unprecedented > >> nescience. If Original Sin wasn’t the fundamental belief of Christianity, > >> it would have not been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly > >> postulate this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. I > >> challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would have > >> not > >> ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone died in the > >> cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as we saw, it has > >> many > >> defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately rational disposal. I > >> await > >> to hear pastoral response. But please, we do not need to either > >> equivocate > >> nor unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >> simplified > >> in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has > >> intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, > >> technically Bob Evans. > >> > >> -- > >> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >> Seminars > >> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail.com From njaskins at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 19:20:27 2017 From: njaskins at gmail.com (Nicole Askins) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:20:27 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion concerning > the > role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and retribution this email > could serve as an interesting and wide ranging discussion on the role of > theology and natural law shaping governance and jurisprudence. Alas, such a > discussion is likely not possible and would only result in consuming many > hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Stewart, > Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a notification > that > my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat ironic given its > content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the moderator of this list. And, > if so, David, could you please blockt the address from which this, what > appears to be religious propaganda, is originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > > kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to the > >>> world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He then > >>> sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account may > >>> ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it contains > >>> major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with > >>> imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because > >>> according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to > >>> redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he > >>> committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one chance to > >>> repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing good and evil, > >>> he became like God according to Genesis. A question here, has he > >>> been punished because he became aware of good and evil? It is > >>> assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate from the tree > >>> of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an innocent? And > >>> as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed adultery, > >>> could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they have > >>> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of > >>> Original Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid > >>> to redeem, how could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded > >>> someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn?t > >>> be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear the guilty?s > >>> iniquity? According to traditional Christian theology, death entered > >>> to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, > >>> he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who > >>> paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if > >>> you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and resurrection > >>> differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn?t > >>> Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are critical and > >>> thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely > >>> on the thought that someone theoretically died for my sins and then, > >>> go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about what > >>> they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume > >>> alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask > >>> you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what > >>> prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion > >>> which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or vicious > >>> deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the culture of > >>> boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you can see, > >>> despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional prettification, it is > >>> besieged with numerously irreconcilable discrepancies. This is the > >>> primary tenet upon which your whole faith is based, this is indeed > >>> the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees with this > >>> statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of Crucifixion > >>> and Redemption be presented without basing it on the Christian > >>> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not > >>> intend to deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians > >>> have absolute right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their > >>> faith. Yes, they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge > >>> them to refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It > >>> just makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone to > >>> become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For > >>> some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if > >>> someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is > >>> quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species to > >>> hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to baffle > >>> between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either > >>> instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim > >>> clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they are wholly > >>> held accountable for any erupted tension in the community. So, > >>> statutorily, instigants are equally held accountable just as actual > >>> actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely gorgeous wore a staggeringly > >>> provocative outfit to purposely beguile men, she is partly held > >>> accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven unless > >>> with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I > >>> ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts > >>> with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote > >>> ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to > >>> establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of timidity > >>> did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin wasn?t > >>> the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not been used > >>> to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate this > >>> theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would > >>> have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone > >>> died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as > >>> we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately > >>> rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral response. But please, we > >>> do not need to either equivocate nor unconscionably philosophise the > >>> matter. It rather has to be simplified in a rationally > >>> straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has intemperately > >>> fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, > >>> technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail.com > From joshl at loevy.com Mon Jul 24 19:26:33 2017 From: joshl at loevy.com (Josh Loevy) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:26:33 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1d85648dd561236fd3a09d097ae8214f@mail.gmail.com> In addition, to my understanding, such a discussion is well outside the scope of this list. There are plenty of venues for theological discussions, and more esoteric discussions about the justice system. I did not sign up for such a discussion, and it would be a shame to see a valuable professional resource consumed by unrelated topics. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: no subject Date: no date Size: 22784 URL: From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 19:33:22 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:33:22 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While this may be a worthwhile topic appropriate for other forums, it is irrelevant to the purpose of this list which is to discuss matters pertinent to blind legal professionals and law students. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:20 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello mr. Stewart, I am very sorry that you don't feel that a rational discussion on the role of religiosity in the justice system is not worth the effort. I think this is a great subject. I hope that you and others will continue this dialog. It is so essential. Spiritual practices are the core of human nature. It makes us think Justice is obtainable and it makes us hope to obtain it. I hope that the illogical insufferable people did not stop this dialogue. It's so worth it. Perhaps we can just skip through the people with their own personal agenda with no investment in Justice. On Jul 24, 2017 2:55 PM, "Luis Mendez via BlindLaw" wrote: > Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion > concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and > retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging > discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance > and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and > would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. > > Luis. > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Stewart, Christopher K > Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator > > Hello All, > > I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a > notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat > ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the > moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the > address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is > originating? > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > > From: Bob Evans > > To: wuas at wake-up.org > > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > > Message-ID: > > gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of > > my theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism > > for your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to > > Zionism. And as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship > > between becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing > > Zionists. I wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this > > challenge in the slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I > > proposed. If you ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be > > vague to you, kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: > >> Hello Mostafa: > >> > >> Thank you for your email. > >> > >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Larry Wilson > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >>> Subject: Original Sin > >>> > >>> Visitor's Message: > >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll > >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to > >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original > >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all > >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to > >>> the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He > >>> then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account > >>> may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it > >>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine > >>> with imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? > >>> Because according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in > >>> order to redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >>> he committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one > >>> chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing > >>> good and evil, he became like God according to Genesis. A question > >>> here, has he been punished because he became aware of good and > >>> evil? It is assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate > >>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish > >>> an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman > >>> committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable > >>> for what they have done? This is the precise logic exploited in > >>> Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for redemption and > >>> forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how could he still forgive? > >>> If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. > >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he > >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it > >>> couldn?t be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear > >>> the guilty?s iniquity? According to traditional Christian > >>> theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. > >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant > >>> and, he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the > >>> one who paid for this. > >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >>> if you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and > >>> resurrection differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. > >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most > >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and > >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do > >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. > >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge > >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the > >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we > >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why > >>> didn?t Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are > >>> critical and thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit > >>> odd to just rely on the thought that someone theoretically died > >>> for my sins and then, go do whatever I want. > >>> We > >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about > >>> what they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly > >>> consume alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. > >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last > >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully > >>> ask you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, > >>> what prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my > >>> religion which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or > >>> vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the > >>> culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you > >>> can see, despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional > >>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable > >>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole > >>> faith is based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If > >>> someone disagrees with this statement, well, tell me then, how > >>> could the account of Crucifixion and Redemption be presented > >>> without basing it on the Christian concept of Original Sin? I > >>> seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend to deride or > >>> ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute > >>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >>> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >>> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >>> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >>> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >>> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >>> is quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species > >>> to hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to > >>> baffle between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. > >>> Pastor > >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >>> accountable. > >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass > >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if > >>> Muslim clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they > >>> are wholly held accountable for any erupted tension in the > >>> community. So, statutorily, instigants are equally held > >>> accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely > >>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely > >>> beguile men, she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >>> It > >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive > facts. > >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical > >>> criticism. > >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven > >>> unless with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified > >>> pride if I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just > >>> contradicts with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious > >>> and to devote ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple > >>> occasions attempted to establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >>> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than > >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin > >>> wasn?t the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not > >>> been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate > >>> this theological conversation because I am quite interested in > >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >>> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >>> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >>> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >>> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral > >>> response. But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor > >>> unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be > >>> simplified in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around > >>> the bush has intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for > >>> reading, Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >>> Seminars > >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > > **************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > lmendez716%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From lmendez716 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 19:40:23 2017 From: lmendez716 at gmail.com (Luis Mendez) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:40:23 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <025c01d304b4$b1898340$149c89c0$@gmail.com> My earlier point exactly. Time to delete and move on. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:16 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Nicole Askins Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin Dear mr. Evans, Thank you for making it clear that that's not your true name. Because just as your name is hidden so is your awareness of anything related to Christianity and the faith there in I read thoroughly through your religious diatribe. I pondered you're arrogant religious assertions. It was very hard to take seriously. I won't go into detail. But I will say first, this is a listserv dedicated to assisting individuals who are blind and have low vision. This is certainly not the place for you to so arrogantly spew your assertions about your religious ideology over another's. Completely out of line. Moreover, for you too so arrogantly suggest that your practice of faith is somehow Superior to any others is ludicrous. You know nothing about the tenets of Christianity. You know nothing about the behavior patterns of Western people. And I know that because of all that you spewed here within this list serve. Quite frankly I'm not just offended by your statement I am disgusted. Lastly, it is quite evident for me to conclude that your practice of religion is just that. Legalism. Religiosity. And has no impact on your personal Behavior, love kindness acceptance forgiveness and other practical practices of a spiritual person clearly escapes you. The reason why no one wants to go toe-to-toe with you to debate your diluted ideology is because time is too precious of a thing to spend one such foolishness. Perhaps, you should reflect on why you are thirsting 4 argumentation and validation. If you are so secure with your religious superiority, why do you need to pontificate? Perhaps you're still thirsty for something more. On Jul 22, 2017 9:08 AM, "Bob Evans via BlindLaw" wrote: > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > Your ministry doesn’t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump’s damnable > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > kindly, keep me notified On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis > wrote: > > Hello Mostafa: > > > > Thank you for your email. > > > > Our views on religious matters are very far apart. > > So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. > > > > Sincerely, > > Larry Wilson > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < > > postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: > > > >> From: Mostafa, technically Bob > >> Subject: Original Sin > >> > >> Visitor's Message: > >> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I > >> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here > >> in Cairo. So, > >> it > >> is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I’ll present the > >> Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to posing crucial > >> queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original Sin in > >> Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all descendants > >> of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to the world. > >> Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He then > >> sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account may > >> ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it contains > >> major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with > >> imperfection. It doesn’t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because > >> according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to > >> redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. > >> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when > >> he committed his ever first > >> sin, why hasn’t he been given one chance to repent? Third, when > >> Adam ate > >> from the tree of knowing good and evil, he became like God > >> according to Genesis. A question here, has he been punished because > >> he became aware of > >> good and evil? It is assumed that he didn’t know good and evil > >> until he ate from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could > >> God punish an innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a > >> woman committed adultery, could we possibly hold their child > >> accountable for what they have done? This is the precise logic > >> exploited in Christian concept of Original Sin. And as for > >> redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how > >> could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded someone, does he > >> has the > >> right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. And, if he wanted to forgive > >> me, could he still retaliate? No, he surely couldn’t. It’s either > >> forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn’t be both. And as for Christ, > >> how could an innocent bear the guilty’s iniquity? According to > >> traditional Christian theology, death entered to the world when > >> Adam and Eve sinned. > >> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, > >> he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who > >> paid for this. > >> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, > >> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that > >> if you think of > >> it a bit. Jesus’s date of Crucifixion and resurrection differs from > >> gospel to another. Please, don’t take my word for this. I urge you > >> to just check > >> John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most Christians today believe that Jesus > >> died on a Friday afternoon and risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As > >> for Adventists, they do not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath > >> held on Saturday. Christian innovation of Original Sin is > >> remarkably exposed. I urge southern laity and their associates to > >> genuinely ponder on the scenario encountered in Christian theology. > >> If Adam sinned and we were contagiously destined to be > >> anathematised eternally, why didn’t Jesus die > >> forever then? I believe that my points are critical and thus, they > >> deserve thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely on the > >> thought that someone theoretically died for my sins and then, go do > >> whatever I want. > >> We > >> bear witness western Christians who basically don’t care about what they > >> do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume alcoholic > >> beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. Where is > >> your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last thing a lay > >> western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask you to > >> ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what prevents > >> me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion which > >> holds me fully accountable for either righteous or vicious deeds. > >> Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the culture of > >> boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you can see, > >> despite the concept’s fraudulently emotional prettification, it is > >> besieged with numerously irreconcilable discrepancies. This is the > >> primary tenet upon which your whole faith is based, this is indeed > >> the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees > >> with this statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of > >> Crucifixion and Redemption be presented without basing it on the > >> Christian concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I > >> do not intend to deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that > >> Christians have absolute > >> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, > >> they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to > >> refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just > >> makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to > >> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be > >> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that > >> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian > >> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone > >> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. > >> For some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like > >> as if someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it > >> is quite perturbing > >> to conjointly destine our whole human species to hell for no fault > >> of its own. However, some pastors tend to baffle between holding > >> the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or > >> actual actors. Pastor > >> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held > >> accountable. > >> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who > >> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass Muslim > >> offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held > >> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim > >> clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they are > >> wholly held accountable for any > >> erupted tension in the community. So, statutorily, instigants are > >> equally held accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who > >> is absolutely gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to > >> purposely beguile men, > >> she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. > >> It > >> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the > >> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. > >> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical criticism. > >> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are > >> going to heaven. I wouldn’t ever assure I am going to heaven unless > >> with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if > >> I ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts > >> with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote > >> ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to > >> establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. > >> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of > >> timidity did not match with my expectations. > >> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an > >> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First > >> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. > >> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn’t do more than > >> substantiating your unprecedented > >> nescience. If Original Sin wasn’t the fundamental belief of Christianity, > >> it would have not been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly > >> postulate this theological conversation because I am quite > >> interested in > >> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. > >> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity > >> would have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that > >> someone died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. > >> However, as we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated > >> in moderately rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral response. > >> But please, we do not need to either equivocate nor unconscionably > >> philosophise the matter. It rather has to be simplified in a > >> rationally straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has > >> intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, > >> Mostafa, technically Bob Evans. > >> > >> -- > >> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America > >> Seminars > >> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail > .com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com From NSingh at cov.com Mon Jul 24 19:57:43 2017 From: NSingh at cov.com (Singh, Nandini) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:57:43 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Message-ID: Good afternoon, I am a new subscriber to the list in addition to a new attorney at a law firm. As I think about how best to adapt and modify aspects of my legal practice using non-visual techniques, I wanted to ask how you conduct depositions. How do you organize exhibits, especially for a deponent who would most likely be sighted while still giving yourself access to the same material in another format? How do you handle last minute additions to the exhibit list? How do you handle occasions when the deponent brings print documents to the deposition? If you are conducting the deposition with a sighted colleague, how do you communicate with each other during the deposition itself (not meaning breaks)? What are some ways you can be an effective second chair? How do you consider the deponent's manner, demeanor, and/or other indicators of character? I would appreciate hearing your ideas and techniques. Regards, Nikki From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Mon Jul 24 21:12:46 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:12:46 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator In-Reply-To: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <028001d304c1$9997d4a0$ccc77de0$@labarrelaw.com> Hello everyone, I think that Luis is right. I have seen far too many discussions about religions and politics devolve into nothing more than mud slinging events. Although there is no doubt that religious and political tenants form part of our law, objective assessment of those factors rarely are the focus of religious and political discussions. The purpose of this list is primarily to bring legal professionals and law students together to discuss the role of blindness/visual impairment in our lives and our practices. I certainly do not think that trying to discuss the virtues of Christianity verses Islam or any other religion are within the perview of discussion here. There is no doubt that there is a diversity of opinion on such subjects within this community and we must respect everyone's beliefs and views. So it is best that we remain focused on the essential mission of the National Association of Blind Lawyers and this Blindlaw list. Respectfully, Scott LaBarre President, NABL -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Luis Mendez via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:54 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: Luis Mendez Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion concerning the role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and retribution this email could serve as an interesting and wide ranging discussion on the role of theology and natural law shaping governance and jurisprudence. Alas, such a discussion is likely not possible and would only result in consuming many hours in pointless exchanges. Luis. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Stewart, Christopher K Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator Hello All, I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a notification that my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat ironic given its content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the moderator of this list. And, if so, David, could you please blockt the address from which this, what appears to be religious propaganda, is originating? Best, Chris On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote: > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200 > From: Bob Evans > To: wuas at wake-up.org > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append > further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my > theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for > your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And > as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished. > Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically > inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in > relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited. > Your ministry doesn?t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope > of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone > could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and > consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump?s damnable > era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite > fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval > office is rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating > your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that > time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to > Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between > becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I > wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the > slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you > ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you, > kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob > > > > > On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis wrote: >> Hello Mostafa: >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> Our views on religious matters are very far apart. >> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless. >> >> Sincerely, >> Larry Wilson >> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message < >> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote: >> >>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob >>> Subject: Original Sin >>> >>> Visitor's Message: >>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I >>> used to be called so when I worked at an American call centre here >>> in Cairo. So, it is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I?ll >>> present the Christian narrative of Original Sin in addition to >>> posing crucial queries and denotative rebuttals. What is Original >>> Sin in Christianity? It is a sin said to be inherited by all >>> descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered to the >>> world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem humanity. He then >>> sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This account may >>> ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it contains >>> major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with >>> imperfection. It doesn?t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because >>> according to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to >>> redeem. At its inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. >>> First, has Adam been destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he >>> committed his ever first sin, why hasn?t he been given one chance to >>> repent? Third, when Adam ate from the tree of knowing good and evil, >>> he became like God according to Genesis. A question here, has he >>> been punished because he became aware of good and evil? It is >>> assumed that he didn?t know good and evil until he ate from the tree >>> of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an innocent? And >>> as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed adultery, >>> could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they have >>> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of >>> Original Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid >>> to redeem, how could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded >>> someone, does he has the right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. >>> And, if he wanted to forgive me, could he still retaliate? No, he >>> surely couldn?t. It?s either forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn?t >>> be both. And as for Christ, how could an innocent bear the guilty?s >>> iniquity? According to traditional Christian theology, death entered >>> to the world when Adam and Eve sinned. >>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, >>> he had to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who >>> paid for this. >>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, >>> he died for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if >>> you think of it a bit. Jesus?s date of Crucifixion and resurrection >>> differs from gospel to another. Please, don?t take my word for this. >>> I urge you to just check John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most >>> Christians today believe that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and >>> risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As for Adventists, they do >>> not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath held on Saturday. >>> Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably exposed. I urge >>> southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder on the >>> scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we >>> were contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn?t >>> Jesus die forever then? I believe that my points are critical and >>> thus, they deserve thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely >>> on the thought that someone theoretically died for my sins and then, >>> go do whatever I want. >>> We >>> bear witness western Christians who basically don?t care about what >>> they do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume >>> alcoholic beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. >>> Where is your devotional consignment? Religious life is the last >>> thing a lay western Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask >>> you to ponder on your religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what >>> prevents me from having a girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion >>> which holds me fully accountable for either righteous or vicious >>> deeds. Why Christian tradition is so tolerant with the culture of >>> boyfriend and girlfriend illicit relationships? As you can see, >>> despite the concept?s fraudulently emotional prettification, it is >>> besieged with numerously irreconcilable discrepancies. This is the >>> primary tenet upon which your whole faith is based, this is indeed >>> the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees with this >>> statement, well, tell me then, how could the account of Crucifixion >>> and Redemption be presented without basing it on the Christian >>> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not >>> intend to deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians >>> have absolute right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their >>> faith. Yes, they have the right to do so on one condition. I urge >>> them to refrain from using fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It >>> just makes their stance quite attenuated and thus, susceptible to >>> easily crumble under critical scrutiny. I am prepared to be >>> christened if someone convinced me with plain reasonableness that >>> what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit to Christian >>> portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince someone to >>> become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For >>> some reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if >>> someone worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is >>> quite perturbing to conjointly destine our whole human species to >>> hell for no fault of its own. However, some pastors tend to baffle >>> between holding the innocent versus the guilty accountable, either >>> instigants or actual actors. >>> Pastor >>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held >>> accountable. >>> Who is an instigant? An instigant is someone who >>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass >>> Muslim offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held >>> accountable for any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim >>> clerics caused hate because of their radical speech, they are wholly >>> held accountable for any erupted tension in the community. So, >>> statutorily, instigants are equally held accountable just as actual >>> actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely gorgeous wore a staggeringly >>> provocative outfit to purposely beguile men, she is partly held >>> accountable for the lust she consciously instigated. >>> It >>> seems that fibbers and chisellers are not willing to address the >>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts. >>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical >>> criticism. >>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are >>> going to heaven. I wouldn?t ever assure I am going to heaven unless >>> with providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I >>> ever thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts >>> with enjoined humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote >>> ourselves to doing good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to >>> establish a mutually deferential dialog with southern pastors. >>> Nevertheless, they failed to comply to this. Their level of timidity >>> did not match with my expectations. >>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an >>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First >>> off, you desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. >>> Moreover, your prejudicial notion doesn?t do more than >>> substantiating your unprecedented nescience. If Original Sin wasn?t >>> the fundamental belief of Christianity, it would have not been used >>> to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly postulate this >>> theological conversation because I am quite interested in >>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. >>> I challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would >>> have not ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone >>> died in the cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as >>> we saw, it has many defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately >>> rational disposal. I await to hear pastoral response. But please, we >>> do not need to either equivocate nor unconscionably philosophise the >>> matter. It rather has to be simplified in a rationally >>> straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has intemperately >>> fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa, >>> technically Bob Evans. >>> >>> -- >>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America >>> Seminars >>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/) >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9 > **************************************** > -- Chris K. Stewart Ph: (502)457-1757 _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com From rothmanjd at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 21:21:59 2017 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (Ronza Othman) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:21:59 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator - From the List Moderator In-Reply-To: <1d85648dd561236fd3a09d097ae8214f@mail.gmail.com> References: <004401d304ae$29161510$7b423f30$@gmail.com> <1d85648dd561236fd3a09d097ae8214f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7540C337-D014-43FD-B858-B0A9BC764F36@gmail.com> Hello, I am one of the list moderators and I am first vice President of the national Association of blind lawyers. The topic of this thread is outside of the scope of this list. Consequently, I am requesting that there be no more discussion related to this topic. In addition, anyone who cannot speak respectfully two other members of the list will be banned. As a reminder, topics related to this list should relate to blindness and legal study or practice only. Ronza Othman Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Josh Loevy via BlindLaw wrote: > > In addition, to my understanding, such a discussion is well outside the > scope of this list. > There are plenty of venues for theological discussions, and more esoteric > discussions about the justice system. I did not sign up for such a > discussion, and it would be a shame to see a valuable professional > resource consumed by unrelated topics. > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Mon Jul 24 21:36:14 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:36:14 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02a401d304c4$e0a97760$a1fc6620$@labarrelaw.com> Nikki, I know you have contacted me off list and every time I try to respond I get a bounce back from your system saying that my email address comes from a system of poor reputation. I am receiving your messages just fine and perhaps you can provide me with an alternative email so that I can try and send my emails to you again because they do contain a significant amount of information. Regards, Scott slabarre at labarrelaw.com -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Singh, Nandini via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:58 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Singh, Nandini Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Good afternoon, I am a new subscriber to the list in addition to a new attorney at a law firm. As I think about how best to adapt and modify aspects of my legal practice using non-visual techniques, I wanted to ask how you conduct depositions. How do you organize exhibits, especially for a deponent who would most likely be sighted while still giving yourself access to the same material in another format? How do you handle last minute additions to the exhibit list? How do you handle occasions when the deponent brings print documents to the deposition? If you are conducting the deposition with a sighted colleague, how do you communicate with each other during the deposition itself (not meaning breaks)? What are some ways you can be an effective second chair? How do you consider the deponent's manner, demeanor, and/or other indicators of character? I would appreciate hearing your ideas and techniques. Regards, Nikki _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 24 21:40:24 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 21:40:24 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: <02a401d304c4$e0a97760$a1fc6620$@labarrelaw.com> References: <02a401d304c4$e0a97760$a1fc6620$@labarrelaw.com> Message-ID: Scott: If it does not contain information specifically pertaining to Nikki, would you be willing to share your response with the list? I would be interested in what you have to say on the subject. Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Scott C. Labarre via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:36 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: Scott C. Labarre Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Nikki, I know you have contacted me off list and every time I try to respond I get a bounce back from your system saying that my email address comes from a system of poor reputation. I am receiving your messages just fine and perhaps you can provide me with an alternative email so that I can try and send my emails to you again because they do contain a significant amount of information. Regards, Scott slabarre at labarrelaw.com -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Singh, Nandini via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:58 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Singh, Nandini Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Good afternoon, I am a new subscriber to the list in addition to a new attorney at a law firm. As I think about how best to adapt and modify aspects of my legal practice using non-visual techniques, I wanted to ask how you conduct depositions. How do you organize exhibits, especially for a deponent who would most likely be sighted while still giving yourself access to the same material in another format? How do you handle last minute additions to the exhibit list? How do you handle occasions when the deponent brings print documents to the deposition? If you are conducting the deposition with a sighted colleague, how do you communicate with each other during the deposition itself (not meaning breaks)? What are some ways you can be an effective second chair? How do you consider the deponent's manner, demeanor, and/or other indicators of character? I would appreciate hearing your ideas and techniques. Regards, Nikki _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From slabarre at labarrelaw.com Mon Jul 24 21:50:02 2017 From: slabarre at labarrelaw.com (Scott C. Labarre) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:50:02 -0600 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b201d304c6$ce2567f0$6a7037d0$@labarrelaw.com> Hey folks, Nikki's post made me think of our presentation at this year's annual meeting of NABL. I am pasting below an article I have shared with NABL and recently updated. It doesn't necessarily answer all of Nikki's questions but hopefully it will spark some discussion on this list. Best to all! Scott PRACTICING LAW AS A BLIND LAWYER WHAT IT TAKES By Scott C. LaBarre July 12, 2017 AUTHOR'S NOTE I first wrote this article in 2008, and before rereading it, I wondered whether it would still be relevant. In short, I believe it is. The fundamental message is the same. The key to being a successful blind attorney is one's attitude and spirit. The rest is just a matter of problem solving and techniques adopted. Sighted attorneys often tell me that technology must be such a wonderful tool and that it must have improved my ability to practice tremendously. They are surprised when I say that technology is a double edged sword. On one hand, I certainly can get my hands on information much more quickly than I could some twenty plus years ago when I attended law school. However, that can be said for everyone, regardless of the level of vision. The other edge of the sword is, of course, inaccessible technology. I may have the assistive technology I need, like my JAWS for Windows, for example, but if the document or software is in some inaccessible format, I am exactly in the same place as I would be if a person handed me a sheet of printed words and expected me to read it independently without the benefit of any technology or human to do so. So one of the biggest hurdles we face as blind lawyers is no different from the obstacles we face with our other blind sisters and brothers. Technology represents such great opportunity, but the digital infrastructure must be built in a way that allows us access. The most effective means to achieve such access is through collective action. That is why I remain a member of the National Federation of the Blind and its lawyers division, the National Association of Blind Lawyers. We are far stronger together than any one of us is alone. INTRODUCTION With negative attitudes and stereotypes about blindness so prevalent in our society, it is not surprising to discover that many people believe that it is quite impossible for a blind or visually impaired person to practice law, or to do much else. Many blind people themselves imagine that it would be difficult to practice law or practice it at the same level as a sighted individual. Through the proper and full use of alternative techniques of blindness and, more importantly, a positive attitude about blindness, blind lawyers can compete at all levels in the legal field. Let me get a preliminary matter out of the way. From here on, I will use the term "blind" and will intend it to encompass the wide range of individuals who have some vision to those that have none. Let me also make another disclaimer. I am totally blind. Therefore, I operate primarily from that experience. Many of my comments are related directly to how it is done using no vision at all. If a person has some vision, I assume that they will, and should, use it. However, the use of residual vision is subject to some additional comments below. OVERALL THEME The most common error that I observe blind lawyers committing is the belief that their practice of law should be somehow limited. They often become overwhelmed by the details. How will I keep track of exhibits? How will I read deposition testimony in Court? How can I keep track of jurors during voir dire? Details are certainly important, and it is imperative that the blind lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, have a full command over those details. However, it is far too easy to become trapped by the details and then scared off. The key element for being a successful blind lawyer is a positive attitude and confidence in yourself as a blind person. You must believe that you can be as effective and competent as any sighted lawyer. The only true limits placed on you are those dictated by your ability, imagination, and willingness. Blind lawyers do not have to shy away from litigation because it can be so document intensive. Blind lawyers are not confined to only limited areas of practice or certain types of practice settings. There is absolutely no area of law which a blind lawyer cannot practice. ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES By "alternative techniques," I mean any tool, device, method, accommodation, or technique used by a blind person to compensate for the loss/lack of vision. My first overall point, and emphasis, is that a blind lawyer must have absolute mastery over the alternative techniques of blindness, all of them. An individual's needs and abilities will, of course, dictate the extent to which the various alternative techniques should be used. Generally, however, because the practice of law requires that we do so many different things in a wide variety of settings, it is best to have a quiver full of alternative technique arrows, even those that may seem somewhat irrelevant to the practice of law. GOOD TRAVEL/ORIENTATION MOBILITY SKILLS Possessing and using good independent travel skills, or what most call orientation and mobility, is crucial. Most do not think that this specific alternative technique has much to do with the practice of law, but I beg to differ. To compete in the event, you have to be present in and able to move around in the arena. The overall point here is that you must be able to get where your job or case requires you to be, and you must be able to do this with minimum expense and inconvenience. The exact method you employ is not all that important, but the overall principal is. What do I mean? Does it matter whether you use dog, cane, residual vision. The short answer is no. Use what is effective for you. You will notice that I did not mention sighted guide in the list which I just articulated. Sighted guide is an important technique, but it is my opinion that it should not be a technique upon which you rely. Does that mean that you should never use it? No, it doesn't mean that either. Where appropriate and convenient, sighted guide should be employed. For example, if I bring my legal assistant to court or a deposition, I may very well go sighted guide. However, if I have a deposition or court in another city, I will not and do not bring my legal assistant if the only purpose for doing so is being guided. I travel independently to other cities for two major purposes. First, I want to limit the client's expenses and those of my business. Second, and maybe more important, I want to send the clear message that a blind lawyer has the ability to travel around independently and compete on his or her own merits. In my practice, I am often representing blind individuals who have been discriminated against on the basis of their blindness, usually in employment settings. It makes quite the impression on opposing counsel and their client when they see a blind attorney on the other side getting wherever independently and doing whatever independently. If the litigation reaches trial, the jury and judge are constantly reminded that the blind are competent. It is no longer just a fictional or abstract concept. Several years ago, my opposing counsel in a case said to me that I would be Exhibit A at trial because of the way I conducted myself as a blind lawyer. We ended up settling that employment discrimination case for over $300,000.00, an amount close to a best case trial scenario. Some people tell me that they simply do not have good travel skills because they went blind later in life or that they just don't have a good sense of direction. If you feel that your travel skills are not up to par, address the problem with training, training that can often be provided through vocational rehabilitation. Ultimately, you must figure out for yourself what works best. Just don't limit yourself because of a lack of confidence that it can be done. Let me expound upon a few specifics. Any time that I am in trial, a hearing, or before an appellate court, I get to know the courtroom. I often go ahead of time and become familiar with the specific room. I want to feel comfortable moving around in the environment. During the contested proceeding, I do not want to worry about getting up from the table and then appearing lost. I want to feel comfortable strolling to the podium or approaching the bench. The same is true for depositions and other types of meetings in offices. When I am taking depos in a local counsel's office, for example, I get familiar with that surrounding so that I can show opposing counsel that I am in command of the environment. I tell them where the bathroom is or where they can go grab a bite to eat. In other words, I do the type of things which they don't expect from a blind person. Now, in saying all this, I need to make one thing clear. Don't be afraid to make mistakes! Mistakes are human. We all make them. There have been times when I have not gone perfectly back to counsel's table, for example. I simply correct course and sit down without showing any distress. In such situations, someone or, often many people, will jump up to help. Accept the help graciously and don't make a big deal of it. Remember you're the one in control. It's not the end of the world if you bump something on the way back to your table. I have seen sighted counsel do it many times during their presentation or travels throughout the courtroom. Before concluding this section, I should say a few things about those who have some residual vision. The basic point is, use it if you got it, but don't rely on it if it's unreliable. Don't be afraid to use a cane or a dog if you have to struggle too hard to see things. Don't be afraid, for example, to use a cane in the courtroom. Don't pretend to be a fully sighted person if you're not. A cane might help you avoid obstacles that your residual vision won't. Those who have full vision will learn, sooner or later, that you don't have such vision, or worse yet, they will think that something else is wrong with you and won't know the reason. Finally, whether I'm appearing in federal court or traveling to some far away city for depositions, my least concern is how I will get there or travel while there. I have the requisite confidence to believe that I will work it out some way, some how. Unfortunately, I have seen far too many blind lawyers be overwhelmed with the details of how they are going to get there and travel while there. The blind lawyer should, through whatever reasonable means necessary, feel comfortable in the appropriate environment and be able to focus on the job at hand. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The world of law is all about words and communicating those words in an effort to persuade others about your point of view. What is law, after all? Well, law, or the laws, is nothing more than a collection of words conveying many arguable meanings, words intended to govern conduct in some form or another. The common ways to communicate these words are, of course, through writing and speech. Blind lawyers who are only blind don't have any trouble with the speech part of things, or at least shouldn't. But one of the great bug-a-boo's for blind lawyers is how to get access to those printed words and manipulate those words back in a form that the sighted can understand. THE IMPORTANCE OF READING AND TAKING NOTES To say that reading for a lawyer is a crucial skill would be rather obvious. Therefore, the blind lawyer must be able to read as well as the sighted. How the blind lawyer reads isn't as important as doing it well and efficiently. Let me say here that if the blind lawyer has some residual vision and can use print efficiently, then, by all means, print should be used. However, because reading and the corresponding skill of note-taking are so important for our profession. The blind lawyer with residual vision must be able to read as efficiently as the sighted. That means reading as fast and reading as long. We all know that it is often necessary in our field to read for hours on end to prepare for court or to write a brief. So, if you can't read print well after an hour, a better technique must be at your finger tips. Let me say something here about note-taking. Many blind folks who have residual vision take notes in print, which is fine, but I have also observed that many of these individuals write in very large print. Beware of your adversary. I was at a contested hearing once upon a time where a blind lawyer with residual vision presented an argument. Her notes and documents were in such large print that opposing counsel, from across the room, could read everything. Now, as for me, I don't have any vision. So, I have to operate in that environment. To surmount the print barrier, I use every trick, alternative technique, available to me. All of them are crucial, and I strongly recommend that any blind lawyer have any or all of them available to him or her so that these techniques can be called up when necessary. BRAILLE Quite frankly, I could not do my job without Braille. I use a Braille Sense as my note taker. That is how I prepare outlines for depositions or court. That is how I take notes in meetings, with clients or otherwise. I like using the device because I can download and upload from it to my pc. I also use low tech Braille solutions as well. For example, sometimes it is necessary for me to jot some notes down using a slate and stylus. This device will always work when the Braille Sense is either not working or not available for some reason. I have, for example, used my slate and stylus to mark a note card with Braille, which I then attach to an exhibit so that I know how to find the specific exhibit later on. I also use the good old Perkins Braille Writer to prepare cover sheets for my exhibits when I go into a trial or deposition. The Perkins is great for advance work like this. I also employ the use of Braille embossers. With today's practice of law becoming more and more digital, it is often common place to have all exhibits in electronic format, especially because most courts are now requiring that documents be filed electronically. Therefore, it is quite easy for me to get exhibits embossed into Braille. So, these days I go to court, hearings, and depositions with a stack of Braille exhibits in hand. It is wonderful to have the ability to read portions of exhibits to witnesses or follow along while opposing counsel is doing something with an exhibit. I take all my notes in Braille. That's how I prepare my cross-examination while opposing counsel is conducting the direct. That's how I prepare rebuttal arguments during hearings or arguments. Braille helps both in advance of the event and during it as well. Braille is an imperative technique for me in my practice. It gives me the ability to follow along and use documents to their full extent. Juries and judges are fascinated with Braille. They appreciate the fact that you are looking right at them while reading, for example. Many blind lawyers have different techniques of using Braille in their practices, but the bottom-line is that Braille allows us to be very competitive with our sighted peers. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY As referenced above, the legal world is growing ever more digital. Any lawyer, with few exceptions, must be conversant in technology to remain on a level playing field with their competition. It is, therefore, only natural and logical that the blind lawyer must not only be computer literate but also literate with adaptive, assistive, technology. For me, that means being able to use JAWS to create documents, read and write e-mails, read electronic documents, conduct legal research, and otherwise use my computer in the same way my sighted colleagues do. I, for example, always ask for deposition transcripts in electronic form as well as the print copies. That is how I read depos later on down the road. I will often copy the deposition in question into another file and then start making notes right in the text. I use some symbol, like "zzz," at the location of my note so that I can search for it later. That way I can easily find important passages at a subsequent time. I will cut and paste parts of depositions into another document, and then I can Braille only those excerpts that I need. This works very well at trial or other types of hearings. Many courts are now using real-time reporting. Be sure to have some laptop hooked into the system. That way you can read the transcript from that day at some other time, in preparation for the next day, for example. Even though the real time transcript often has some errors and is certainly not an official transcript, it gets you where you need to go in terms of contemporaneous preparation. One last thing on trial transcripts; when you order a trial transcript, the court can provide an electronic copy in the same way that depositions can be provided electronically. This is a great tool to use when preparing appellate briefs. I am well aware of the fact that I haven't addressed all the assistive technology which can be helpful to the blind practitioner. The emergence of iPhones, iPads, and other smart devices are causing their own revolution in the legal field, and Apple's inherent accessibility is a great advantage to us. Regardless, there is way too much to mention and it's always changing. The main point is to make sure that you are literate in the latest and greatest technology and how assistive technology can work for you. For example, the KNFB Reader Mobile fits in a cell phone and is a great tool to take along and to review the last minute documents that have a way of popping up. READERS To this point, I haven't mentioned a low tech, perhaps the highest tech, yet very important, alternative technique. Despite our technological advances, nothing yet replaces the human reader and skilled use of same. It is absolutely crucial to learn how to use readers and use them well. None of my technology can efficiently pick up the fax off the machine and tell me its contents in 30 seconds. None of my technology can easily tell me about a surprise document which pops up at trial or some other setting. The human reader is still able to scan large quantities of printed material in an intelligent manner. Until the handheld reading device is as flexible and reliable and as intelligent as the human reader, there will always be a place for competent readers. CONCLUSION This document is not intended to be the all encompassing manual on every alternative technique necessary for the successful practice of law for blind lawyers. Its intent is to instill a positive attitude leading to creative problem solving. Although some specific tips were discussed here, the key is having the fundamental belief that you, as a blind lawyer, can do as well as any other lawyer, regardless of practice area. Additionally, it is also crucial to remember that you don't practice law in a vacuum. The rest of us are out here to help. Through your colleagues in the National Federation of the Blind and the National Association of Blind Lawyers, you will always find someone with whom you can speak about a specific problem. So, in this regard, it is much better being part of a vehicle for collective action rather than flying solo. Working together, we can indeed very successfully practice law on our own terms and live the life we want! -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Singh, Nandini via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:58 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Singh, Nandini Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Good afternoon, I am a new subscriber to the list in addition to a new attorney at a law firm. As I think about how best to adapt and modify aspects of my legal practice using non-visual techniques, I wanted to ask how you conduct depositions. How do you organize exhibits, especially for a deponent who would most likely be sighted while still giving yourself access to the same material in another format? How do you handle last minute additions to the exhibit list? How do you handle occasions when the deponent brings print documents to the deposition? If you are conducting the deposition with a sighted colleague, how do you communicate with each other during the deposition itself (not meaning breaks)? What are some ways you can be an effective second chair? How do you consider the deponent's manner, demeanor, and/or other indicators of character? I would appreciate hearing your ideas and techniques. Regards, Nikki _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com From lmendez716 at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 16:45:35 2017 From: lmendez716 at gmail.com (Luis Mendez) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:45:35 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: <02b201d304c6$ce2567f0$6a7037d0$@labarrelaw.com> References: <02b201d304c6$ce2567f0$6a7037d0$@labarrelaw.com> Message-ID: <006301d30565$7109a690$531cf3b0$@gmail.com> An excellent article. As to the question of discerning visual ques, be attuned to tone of voice, pitch changes, frequent shifts of position and other audible cues that may signal stress, discomfort or other indications of state-of-mind. Just as readers remain a key component of a blind practitioner's tool kit, when available, don't hesitate to ask a colleague to share his or her observations. Mostly, rely on your senses and impressions. If you are attuned and observant you will find that you will often pick up as much or more than others in the room. Also, be listening for inconsistencies and subtle shifts in responses or emphasis. Such shift, often unconsciously engaged in, can disclose much about a witness's state of mind and/or objectivity or truthfulness. Luis -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Scott C. Labarre via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:50 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: Scott C. Labarre Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Hey folks, Nikki's post made me think of our presentation at this year's annual meeting of NABL. I am pasting below an article I have shared with NABL and recently updated. It doesn't necessarily answer all of Nikki's questions but hopefully it will spark some discussion on this list. Best to all! Scott PRACTICING LAW AS A BLIND LAWYER WHAT IT TAKES By Scott C. LaBarre July 12, 2017 AUTHOR'S NOTE I first wrote this article in 2008, and before rereading it, I wondered whether it would still be relevant. In short, I believe it is. The fundamental message is the same. The key to being a successful blind attorney is one's attitude and spirit. The rest is just a matter of problem solving and techniques adopted. Sighted attorneys often tell me that technology must be such a wonderful tool and that it must have improved my ability to practice tremendously. They are surprised when I say that technology is a double edged sword. On one hand, I certainly can get my hands on information much more quickly than I could some twenty plus years ago when I attended law school. However, that can be said for everyone, regardless of the level of vision. The other edge of the sword is, of course, inaccessible technology. I may have the assistive technology I need, like my JAWS for Windows, for example, but if the document or software is in some inaccessible format, I am exactly in the same place as I would be if a person handed me a sheet of printed words and expected me to read it independently without the benefit of any technology or human to do so. So one of the biggest hurdles we face as blind lawyers is no different from the obstacles we face with our other blind sisters and brothers. Technology represents such great opportunity, but the digital infrastructure must be built in a way that allows us access. The most effective means to achieve such access is through collective action. That is why I remain a member of the National Federation of the Blind and its lawyers division, the National Association of Blind Lawyers. We are far stronger together than any one of us is alone. INTRODUCTION With negative attitudes and stereotypes about blindness so prevalent in our society, it is not surprising to discover that many people believe that it is quite impossible for a blind or visually impaired person to practice law, or to do much else. Many blind people themselves imagine that it would be difficult to practice law or practice it at the same level as a sighted individual. Through the proper and full use of alternative techniques of blindness and, more importantly, a positive attitude about blindness, blind lawyers can compete at all levels in the legal field. Let me get a preliminary matter out of the way. From here on, I will use the term "blind" and will intend it to encompass the wide range of individuals who have some vision to those that have none. Let me also make another disclaimer. I am totally blind. Therefore, I operate primarily from that experience. Many of my comments are related directly to how it is done using no vision at all. If a person has some vision, I assume that they will, and should, use it. However, the use of residual vision is subject to some additional comments below. OVERALL THEME The most common error that I observe blind lawyers committing is the belief that their practice of law should be somehow limited. They often become overwhelmed by the details. How will I keep track of exhibits? How will I read deposition testimony in Court? How can I keep track of jurors during voir dire? Details are certainly important, and it is imperative that the blind lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, have a full command over those details. However, it is far too easy to become trapped by the details and then scared off. The key element for being a successful blind lawyer is a positive attitude and confidence in yourself as a blind person. You must believe that you can be as effective and competent as any sighted lawyer. The only true limits placed on you are those dictated by your ability, imagination, and willingness. Blind lawyers do not have to shy away from litigation because it can be so document intensive. Blind lawyers are not confined to only limited areas of practice or certain types of practice settings. There is absolutely no area of law which a blind lawyer cannot practice. ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES By "alternative techniques," I mean any tool, device, method, accommodation, or technique used by a blind person to compensate for the loss/lack of vision. My first overall point, and emphasis, is that a blind lawyer must have absolute mastery over the alternative techniques of blindness, all of them. An individual's needs and abilities will, of course, dictate the extent to which the various alternative techniques should be used. Generally, however, because the practice of law requires that we do so many different things in a wide variety of settings, it is best to have a quiver full of alternative technique arrows, even those that may seem somewhat irrelevant to the practice of law. GOOD TRAVEL/ORIENTATION MOBILITY SKILLS Possessing and using good independent travel skills, or what most call orientation and mobility, is crucial. Most do not think that this specific alternative technique has much to do with the practice of law, but I beg to differ. To compete in the event, you have to be present in and able to move around in the arena. The overall point here is that you must be able to get where your job or case requires you to be, and you must be able to do this with minimum expense and inconvenience. The exact method you employ is not all that important, but the overall principal is. What do I mean? Does it matter whether you use dog, cane, residual vision. The short answer is no. Use what is effective for you. You will notice that I did not mention sighted guide in the list which I just articulated. Sighted guide is an important technique, but it is my opinion that it should not be a technique upon which you rely. Does that mean that you should never use it? No, it doesn't mean that either. Where appropriate and convenient, sighted guide should be employed. For example, if I bring my legal assistant to court or a deposition, I may very well go sighted guide. However, if I have a deposition or court in another city, I will not and do not bring my legal assistant if the only purpose for doing so is being guided. I travel independently to other cities for two major purposes. First, I want to limit the client's expenses and those of my business. Second, and maybe more important, I want to send the clear message that a blind lawyer has the ability to travel around independently and compete on his or her own merits. In my practice, I am often representing blind individuals who have been discriminated against on the basis of their blindness, usually in employment settings. It makes quite the impression on opposing counsel and their client when they see a blind attorney on the other side getting wherever independently and doing whatever independently. If the litigation reaches trial, the jury and judge are constantly reminded that the blind are competent. It is no longer just a fictional or abstract concept. Several years ago, my opposing counsel in a case said to me that I would be Exhibit A at trial because of the way I conducted myself as a blind lawyer. We ended up settling that employment discrimination case for over $300,000.00, an amount close to a best case trial scenario. Some people tell me that they simply do not have good travel skills because they went blind later in life or that they just don't have a good sense of direction. If you feel that your travel skills are not up to par, address the problem with training, training that can often be provided through vocational rehabilitation. Ultimately, you must figure out for yourself what works best. Just don't limit yourself because of a lack of confidence that it can be done. Let me expound upon a few specifics. Any time that I am in trial, a hearing, or before an appellate court, I get to know the courtroom. I often go ahead of time and become familiar with the specific room. I want to feel comfortable moving around in the environment. During the contested proceeding, I do not want to worry about getting up from the table and then appearing lost. I want to feel comfortable strolling to the podium or approaching the bench. The same is true for depositions and other types of meetings in offices. When I am taking depos in a local counsel's office, for example, I get familiar with that surrounding so that I can show opposing counsel that I am in command of the environment. I tell them where the bathroom is or where they can go grab a bite to eat. In other words, I do the type of things which they don't expect from a blind person. Now, in saying all this, I need to make one thing clear. Don't be afraid to make mistakes! Mistakes are human. We all make them. There have been times when I have not gone perfectly back to counsel's table, for example. I simply correct course and sit down without showing any distress. In such situations, someone or, often many people, will jump up to help. Accept the help graciously and don't make a big deal of it. Remember you're the one in control. It's not the end of the world if you bump something on the way back to your table. I have seen sighted counsel do it many times during their presentation or travels throughout the courtroom. Before concluding this section, I should say a few things about those who have some residual vision. The basic point is, use it if you got it, but don't rely on it if it's unreliable. Don't be afraid to use a cane or a dog if you have to struggle too hard to see things. Don't be afraid, for example, to use a cane in the courtroom. Don't pretend to be a fully sighted person if you're not. A cane might help you avoid obstacles that your residual vision won't. Those who have full vision will learn, sooner or later, that you don't have such vision, or worse yet, they will think that something else is wrong with you and won't know the reason. Finally, whether I'm appearing in federal court or traveling to some far away city for depositions, my least concern is how I will get there or travel while there. I have the requisite confidence to believe that I will work it out some way, some how. Unfortunately, I have seen far too many blind lawyers be overwhelmed with the details of how they are going to get there and travel while there. The blind lawyer should, through whatever reasonable means necessary, feel comfortable in the appropriate environment and be able to focus on the job at hand. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The world of law is all about words and communicating those words in an effort to persuade others about your point of view. What is law, after all? Well, law, or the laws, is nothing more than a collection of words conveying many arguable meanings, words intended to govern conduct in some form or another. The common ways to communicate these words are, of course, through writing and speech. Blind lawyers who are only blind don't have any trouble with the speech part of things, or at least shouldn't. But one of the great bug-a-boo's for blind lawyers is how to get access to those printed words and manipulate those words back in a form that the sighted can understand. THE IMPORTANCE OF READING AND TAKING NOTES To say that reading for a lawyer is a crucial skill would be rather obvious. Therefore, the blind lawyer must be able to read as well as the sighted. How the blind lawyer reads isn't as important as doing it well and efficiently. Let me say here that if the blind lawyer has some residual vision and can use print efficiently, then, by all means, print should be used. However, because reading and the corresponding skill of note-taking are so important for our profession. The blind lawyer with residual vision must be able to read as efficiently as the sighted. That means reading as fast and reading as long. We all know that it is often necessary in our field to read for hours on end to prepare for court or to write a brief. So, if you can't read print well after an hour, a better technique must be at your finger tips. Let me say something here about note-taking. Many blind folks who have residual vision take notes in print, which is fine, but I have also observed that many of these individuals write in very large print. Beware of your adversary. I was at a contested hearing once upon a time where a blind lawyer with residual vision presented an argument. Her notes and documents were in such large print that opposing counsel, from across the room, could read everything. Now, as for me, I don't have any vision. So, I have to operate in that environment. To surmount the print barrier, I use every trick, alternative technique, available to me. All of them are crucial, and I strongly recommend that any blind lawyer have any or all of them available to him or her so that these techniques can be called up when necessary. BRAILLE Quite frankly, I could not do my job without Braille. I use a Braille Sense as my note taker. That is how I prepare outlines for depositions or court. That is how I take notes in meetings, with clients or otherwise. I like using the device because I can download and upload from it to my pc. I also use low tech Braille solutions as well. For example, sometimes it is necessary for me to jot some notes down using a slate and stylus. This device will always work when the Braille Sense is either not working or not available for some reason. I have, for example, used my slate and stylus to mark a note card with Braille, which I then attach to an exhibit so that I know how to find the specific exhibit later on. I also use the good old Perkins Braille Writer to prepare cover sheets for my exhibits when I go into a trial or deposition. The Perkins is great for advance work like this. I also employ the use of Braille embossers. With today's practice of law becoming more and more digital, it is often common place to have all exhibits in electronic format, especially because most courts are now requiring that documents be filed electronically. Therefore, it is quite easy for me to get exhibits embossed into Braille. So, these days I go to court, hearings, and depositions with a stack of Braille exhibits in hand. It is wonderful to have the ability to read portions of exhibits to witnesses or follow along while opposing counsel is doing something with an exhibit. I take all my notes in Braille. That's how I prepare my cross-examination while opposing counsel is conducting the direct. That's how I prepare rebuttal arguments during hearings or arguments. Braille helps both in advance of the event and during it as well. Braille is an imperative technique for me in my practice. It gives me the ability to follow along and use documents to their full extent. Juries and judges are fascinated with Braille. They appreciate the fact that you are looking right at them while reading, for example. Many blind lawyers have different techniques of using Braille in their practices, but the bottom-line is that Braille allows us to be very competitive with our sighted peers. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY As referenced above, the legal world is growing ever more digital. Any lawyer, with few exceptions, must be conversant in technology to remain on a level playing field with their competition. It is, therefore, only natural and logical that the blind lawyer must not only be computer literate but also literate with adaptive, assistive, technology. For me, that means being able to use JAWS to create documents, read and write e-mails, read electronic documents, conduct legal research, and otherwise use my computer in the same way my sighted colleagues do. I, for example, always ask for deposition transcripts in electronic form as well as the print copies. That is how I read depos later on down the road. I will often copy the deposition in question into another file and then start making notes right in the text. I use some symbol, like "zzz," at the location of my note so that I can search for it later. That way I can easily find important passages at a subsequent time. I will cut and paste parts of depositions into another document, and then I can Braille only those excerpts that I need. This works very well at trial or other types of hearings. Many courts are now using real-time reporting. Be sure to have some laptop hooked into the system. That way you can read the transcript from that day at some other time, in preparation for the next day, for example. Even though the real time transcript often has some errors and is certainly not an official transcript, it gets you where you need to go in terms of contemporaneous preparation. One last thing on trial transcripts; when you order a trial transcript, the court can provide an electronic copy in the same way that depositions can be provided electronically. This is a great tool to use when preparing appellate briefs. I am well aware of the fact that I haven't addressed all the assistive technology which can be helpful to the blind practitioner. The emergence of iPhones, iPads, and other smart devices are causing their own revolution in the legal field, and Apple's inherent accessibility is a great advantage to us. Regardless, there is way too much to mention and it's always changing. The main point is to make sure that you are literate in the latest and greatest technology and how assistive technology can work for you. For example, the KNFB Reader Mobile fits in a cell phone and is a great tool to take along and to review the last minute documents that have a way of popping up. READERS To this point, I haven't mentioned a low tech, perhaps the highest tech, yet very important, alternative technique. Despite our technological advances, nothing yet replaces the human reader and skilled use of same. It is absolutely crucial to learn how to use readers and use them well. None of my technology can efficiently pick up the fax off the machine and tell me its contents in 30 seconds. None of my technology can easily tell me about a surprise document which pops up at trial or some other setting. The human reader is still able to scan large quantities of printed material in an intelligent manner. Until the handheld reading device is as flexible and reliable and as intelligent as the human reader, there will always be a place for competent readers. CONCLUSION This document is not intended to be the all encompassing manual on every alternative technique necessary for the successful practice of law for blind lawyers. Its intent is to instill a positive attitude leading to creative problem solving. Although some specific tips were discussed here, the key is having the fundamental belief that you, as a blind lawyer, can do as well as any other lawyer, regardless of practice area. Additionally, it is also crucial to remember that you don't practice law in a vacuum. The rest of us are out here to help. Through your colleagues in the National Federation of the Blind and the National Association of Blind Lawyers, you will always find someone with whom you can speak about a specific problem. So, in this regard, it is much better being part of a vehicle for collective action rather than flying solo. Working together, we can indeed very successfully practice law on our own terms and live the life we want! -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Singh, Nandini via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 1:58 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Singh, Nandini Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Good afternoon, I am a new subscriber to the list in addition to a new attorney at a law firm. As I think about how best to adapt and modify aspects of my legal practice using non-visual techniques, I wanted to ask how you conduct depositions. How do you organize exhibits, especially for a deponent who would most likely be sighted while still giving yourself access to the same material in another format? How do you handle last minute additions to the exhibit list? How do you handle occasions when the deponent brings print documents to the deposition? If you are conducting the deposition with a sighted colleague, how do you communicate with each other during the deposition itself (not meaning breaks)? What are some ways you can be an effective second chair? How do you consider the deponent's manner, demeanor, and/or other indicators of character? I would appreciate hearing your ideas and techniques. Regards, Nikki _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/slabarre%40labarrelaw. com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Tue Jul 25 17:25:33 2017 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:25:33 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible VOIP telephone? Message-ID: Blindlaw listers, I am hoping that some of you are using VOIP telephones. I am wondering whether any of you are aware of a model of a VOIP telephone that has speech output, rather than requiring the use of ancillary software like Accessaphone. I'd appreciate any information anyone has. Noel From rene0373 at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 17:07:03 2017 From: rene0373 at gmail.com (Elizabeth Rene) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:07:03 -0700 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions Message-ID: <1530FE8D-0C83-41E5-8DB1-A960FC9197D0@gmail.com> Dear colleagues, I want to complement Scott and Luis on their excellent posts. I have tried and argued cases at every level of my state's courts and have presided at administrative hearings and settlement conferences. Currently, I chair my state bar association's Character and Fitness Board, where I preside at hearings to determine whether certain applicants for admission to the bar should be recommended to the Supreme Court and submit and oversee the drafting of our Board's written findings and conclusions. These hearings involve evidentiary records and transcripts amounting to thousands of pages. The proceedings themselves can be complex and intense. The observations and suggestions made by Scott and Luis are right on point. The only thing I would possibly add to them is to encourage blind lawyers to participate actively in their state and local bar associations and to not shrink from the possibility of serving as a judge or judicial officer. Nothing should prevent us now from serving as law clerks in the appellate courts, from serving as court commissioners, referees, arbitrators, or mediators, from serving on rules committees, disciplinary boards, or task forces formed to improve access to justice, or from seeking elective or appointive seats on the trial and appellate bench. I think we need to claim these opportunities and to encourage one another to do so. Having faced our own struggles as blind people, we have a first-hand understanding of the impact and dynamics of implicit and explicit bias and can make significant contributions in these troubled times toward securing justice for everyone. Sincerely, Elizabeth M René Attorney at Law WSBA #10710 KCBA #21824 rene0373 at gmail.com From angie.matney at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 17:41:48 2017 From: angie.matney at gmail.com (Angie Matney) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:41:48 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: <1530FE8D-0C83-41E5-8DB1-A960FC9197D0@gmail.com> References: <1530FE8D-0C83-41E5-8DB1-A960FC9197D0@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a fascinating thread. I learned a lot from Scott's article. I have never wanted to be a litigator. I expressed this to my current firm when I summered with them during law school. Perhaps they thought it was because of my blindness, but blindness actually has nothing to do with it. I am certain that if I wanted to litigate, I would find alternative techniques that worked, just as Scott has described. I have done this in the context of my transactional practice. The common scenarios might be a bit different, but the principles are the same. Also, Luis's comments on nonverbal communication are excellent. On 7/26/17, Elizabeth Rene via BlindLaw wrote: > Dear colleagues, > I want to complement Scott and Luis on their excellent posts. > I have tried and argued cases at every level of my state's courts and have > presided at administrative hearings and settlement conferences. Currently, I > chair my state bar association's Character and Fitness Board, where I > preside at hearings to determine whether certain applicants for admission to > the bar should be recommended to the Supreme Court and submit and oversee > the drafting of our Board's written findings and conclusions. These hearings > involve evidentiary records and transcripts amounting to thousands of pages. > The proceedings themselves can be complex and intense. The observations and > suggestions made by Scott and Luis are right on point. The only thing I > would possibly add to them is to encourage blind lawyers to participate > actively in their state and local bar associations and to not shrink from > the possibility of serving as a judge or judicial officer. Nothing should > prevent us now from serving as law clerks in the appellate courts, from > serving as court commissioners, referees, arbitrators, or mediators, from > serving on rules committees, disciplinary boards, or task forces formed to > improve access to justice, or from seeking elective or appointive seats on > the trial and appellate bench. I think we need to claim these opportunities > and to encourage one another to do so. Having faced our own struggles as > blind people, we have a first-hand understanding of the impact and dynamics > of implicit and explicit bias and can make significant contributions in > these troubled times toward securing justice for everyone. > Sincerely, > > Elizabeth M René > Attorney at Law > WSBA #10710 > KCBA #21824 > rene0373 at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/angie.matney%40gmail.com From njaskins at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 23:13:29 2017 From: njaskins at gmail.com (Nicole Askins) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:13:29 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Conducting Depositions In-Reply-To: References: <1530FE8D-0C83-41E5-8DB1-A960FC9197D0@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree, very helpful information. Thanks for sharing Scott On Jul 26, 2017 1:42 PM, "Angie Matney via BlindLaw" wrote: > This is a fascinating thread. I learned a lot from Scott's article. I > have never wanted to be a litigator. I expressed this to my current > firm when I summered with them during law school. Perhaps they thought > it was because of my blindness, but blindness actually has nothing to > do with it. I am certain that if I wanted to litigate, I would find > alternative techniques that worked, just as Scott has described. I > have done this in the context of my transactional practice. The common > scenarios might be a bit different, but the principles are the same. > Also, Luis's comments on nonverbal communication are excellent. > > On 7/26/17, Elizabeth Rene via BlindLaw wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > I want to complement Scott and Luis on their excellent posts. > > I have tried and argued cases at every level of my state's courts and > have > > presided at administrative hearings and settlement conferences. > Currently, I > > chair my state bar association's Character and Fitness Board, where I > > preside at hearings to determine whether certain applicants for > admission to > > the bar should be recommended to the Supreme Court and submit and oversee > > the drafting of our Board's written findings and conclusions. These > hearings > > involve evidentiary records and transcripts amounting to thousands of > pages. > > The proceedings themselves can be complex and intense. The observations > and > > suggestions made by Scott and Luis are right on point. The only thing I > > would possibly add to them is to encourage blind lawyers to participate > > actively in their state and local bar associations and to not shrink from > > the possibility of serving as a judge or judicial officer. Nothing should > > prevent us now from serving as law clerks in the appellate courts, from > > serving as court commissioners, referees, arbitrators, or mediators, from > > serving on rules committees, disciplinary boards, or task forces formed > to > > improve access to justice, or from seeking elective or appointive seats > on > > the trial and appellate bench. I think we need to claim these > opportunities > > and to encourage one another to do so. Having faced our own struggles as > > blind people, we have a first-hand understanding of the impact and > dynamics > > of implicit and explicit bias and can make significant contributions in > > these troubled times toward securing justice for everyone. > > Sincerely, > > > > Elizabeth M René > > Attorney at Law > > WSBA #10710 > > KCBA #21824 > > rene0373 at gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > > BlindLaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ > angie.matney%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail.com From njaskins at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 17:59:13 2017 From: njaskins at gmail.com (Nicole Askins) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:59:13 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Doc editing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings all Embarking upon this law school Journey has revealed to me that I have to relearn how to do some very basic things as a person with low vision. Specifically, effectively and quickly editing documents. Usually, I magnify my screen to edit documents. However, this is beginning to take up more time then I feel is necessary. I use Microsoft ease of access software. Currently, that is working for me and I don't feel the need to upgrade my software. However, I have a question. Does anyone have suggestions as to the best method of navigating, editing, and using Microsoft track changes when drafting documents? The trouble I seem to have is if I share my document with someone, they make track change suggestions, yet the narrator we'll miss those suggestions. Also, is there another program or software that individuals who are blind or with low vision use to draft and edit documents? Last, are there any suggestions about formatting documents as an individual with low vision? I have issues with my depth perception. This means that my document could be formatted incorrectly. Sometimes I can't tell because the screen is so magnified. My goal is to create precise and effective Publications without the assistance of a sighted individual. Moreover, I desire to demonstrate that I am not limited by my sight impairment. I am certain that with some training I will produce a product that reflects my intellect without demonstrating my in abilities. Thank you in advance for your response with warmest regards From chris.stewart at uky.edu Mon Jul 31 13:32:10 2017 From: chris.stewart at uky.edu (Stewart, Christopher K) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:32:10 -0500 Subject: [blindlaw] Doc Editing Message-ID: Hi Nicole, I think you'll find it easier to edit if you make use of a program like JAWS or Zoomtext. I have no residual vision, so I haven't experienced Zoomtext, but with JAWS, I know key commands that will tell me everything about the font, style, spacing, Etc. of any MS Word document. Also, as a federal law clerk, I work in documents with track changes a lot. JAWS has a cool feature where I can switch the program into what's called "quick key mode" and navigate through the document, jumping from track change to track change. This ensures I don't miss any suggested revisions. I would imagine Zoomtext has these same features, but it is also a screen magnifier. Both programs are made by AI Squared. You can find more at www.aisquared.com . Best, Chris On 7/30/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote: > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Doc editing (Nicole Askins) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:59:13 -0400 > From: Nicole Askins > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: [blindlaw] Doc editing > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Greetings all > > Embarking upon this law school Journey has revealed to me that I have to > relearn how to do some very basic things as a person with low vision. > Specifically, effectively and quickly editing documents. > Usually, I magnify my screen to edit documents. However, this is beginning > to take up more time then I feel is necessary. > I use Microsoft ease of access software. Currently, that is working for me > and I don't feel the need to upgrade my software. > However, I have a question. Does anyone have suggestions as to the best > method of navigating, editing, and using Microsoft track changes when > drafting documents? > The trouble I seem to have is if I share my document with someone, they > make track change suggestions, yet the narrator we'll miss those > suggestions. > Also, is there another program or software that individuals who are blind > or with low vision use to draft and edit documents? > > Last, are there any suggestions about formatting documents as an individual > with low vision? > I have issues with my depth perception. This means that my document could > be formatted incorrectly. Sometimes I can't tell because the screen is so > magnified. > My goal is to create precise and effective Publications without the > assistance of a sighted individual. Moreover, I desire to demonstrate that > I am not limited by my sight impairment. I am certain that with some > training I will produce a product that reflects my intellect without > demonstrating my in abilities. > Thank you in advance for your response with warmest regards > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 13 > ***************************************** > -- Chris K. Stewart Attorney at Law KBA #97351 Ph: (502)457-1757 From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Jul 31 17:49:53 2017 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:49:53 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] =?windows-1252?q?Article=3A_Justice_Department_Says_Ve?= =?windows-1252?q?nding_Machines_Are_Not_Places_Of_Public_Accommodation=97?= =?windows-1252?q?And_So_Much_More=2C_Seyfarth/Shaw=2C_July_27=2C_2017?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.adatitleiii.com/2017/07/justice-department-says-vending-machines-are-not-places-of-public-accommodation-and-so-much-more/?utm_source=Seyfarth+Shaw+-+ADA+Title+III+News+%26+Insights&utm_campaign=c05b6db1cf-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_decb46f1f5-c05b6db1cf-73100337 Justice Department Says Vending Machines Are Not Places Of Public Accommodation—And So Much More Seyfarth and Shaw July 27, 2017 By Kristina M. Launey & Minh Vu Seyfarth Synopsis: In amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department agreed with the Fifth Circuit and defendant Coca-Cola that a vending machine is not a place of public accommodation and that public accommodations can comply with the ADA by providing assistance to customers in lieu of having accessible self-service equipment. The Supreme Court recently asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to weigh in on whether vending machines are places of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA. The Court’s request related to a pending a Petition for Certiorari filed by a blind plaintiff who unsuccessfully sued Coca-Cola for allegedly owning and/or operating vending machines that are not independently usable by the blind. Both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit had concluded that such machines are not public accommodations under the ADA. The DOJ’s amicus brief unequivocally stated its position that vending machines are not public accommodations. The DOJ advanced a number of arguments in support of its position that a vending machine does not fall within any of the 12 categories of businesses that are considered public accommodations under the statute. Among other things, the DOJ stated that a vending machine is not a “sales establishment” covered by the law but rather a piece of equipment typically found within public accommodations facilities. The most significant commentary from the DOJ’s brief concerns a public accommodation’s obligations with regard to self-service equipment provided for public use. The DOJ stated: the operator of a public accommodation in which the vending machines is located is better suited to determine whether such changes [(i.e. making the vending machines independently accessible by blind users)] are the most efficient means of complying with the ADA. When buying or leasing vending machines, some business owners may insist upon the inclusion of accessible features. Others, however, might choose instead to install the machines at locations within their establishments where their employees will be available to assist customers with disabilities. The business owner is better positioned than the seller or lessor of the machines to determine what method of ensuring accessibility will be most effective at a particular location. In other words, it is the DOJ’s position that providing assistance to customers with disabilities is a lawful way to provide access in lieu of procuring accessible vending machines. Presumably this position would extend to all self-service equipment provided for customer use — at least when there are no privacy concerns. (In 2014, the DOJ had filed a Statement of Interest in a different case involving allegedly inaccessible point-of-sale devices where it took the position that a public accommodation must provide individuals with disabilities independent access to point-of-sale devices which require the entry of Personal Identification Numbers (PINs).) Also significant was DOJ’s view that the Supreme Court should not grant review of the case in order to address the question of whether online-only businesses are covered by Title III of the ADA. The DOJ noted that while “questions concerning Title III’s application to non-physical establishments – including websites or digital services – may someday warrant” the Supreme Court’s attention, this case was not the time or place to do so since the plaintiff here encountered the machines in person, not via telephone or internet. The DOJ’s suggestion that the Court should defer on this issue suggests that the Department may be evaluating its prior position that online-only businesses are covered by the ADA. From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Mon Jul 31 18:39:18 2017 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:39:18 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Diversity Notification In-Reply-To: References: <92074407.9203.1501487419951.JavaMail.careerconnector@mgsapps.monster.com> Message-ID: From: Jobs [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Maurer, Patricia via Jobs Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:58 AM To: 'jobs at nfbnet.org' Cc: Maurer, Patricia Subject: [Jobs] FW: Diversity Notification -----Original Message----- From: careerconnector at mgsapps.monster.com [mailto:careerconnector at mgsapps.monster.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 3:50 AM To: Maurer, Patricia Subject: Diversity Notification National Federation of the Blind Sir/Madam Dear Sir/Madam: Your organization and its members might be interested in the following vacancy announcement: Announcement Number: ATTY-MB-2017-003 Vacancy Description: Attorney-Advisor (General) Open Period: 07/31/2017 to 08/07/2017 Series/Grade: GS-0905B Attorney Advisor-13/14 Salary: (USD) $94,796 - (USD) $145,629 Hiring Agency: Federal Communications Commission Duty Location: Washington, DC, US For more information, please visit the vacancy announcement located at https://careerconnector.jobs.treas.gov/cc/fcc/vacancy/viewVacancyDetail!execute.hms?orgId=1751&jnum=154265. Thank you. Human Resources Management Federal Communications Commission -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Jobs mailing list Jobs at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/jobs_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/jobs_nfbnet.org/noel.nightingale%40ed.gov From jty727 at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 19:51:27 2017 From: jty727 at gmail.com (Justin Young) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:51:27 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Message-ID: Hello All! Hope this message finds you well! It was mentioned during the National Association of Blind Lawyers meeting that a message was sent awhile ago to this mailing list related to Accessible printers through Samson I believe it was related to using a tablet to make them accessible. I can't seem to find that message and was wondering if someone could send me the information related to that printer message? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to look at it. Thanks, Justin Young From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 31 22:02:17 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:02:17 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello. I was the presenter at NABL that mentioned this printer. I also sent a message to the list about it. The model I am using is the Samsung M4580 smart printer which is controlled by an Android tablet that has speech capabilities. My office is renting this printer for $20 a month. I am not sure what it retails for. It can print, scan and copy but does not have a fax machine. My office used the Samsung X7400 for a time and this printer also had an Android tablet for controls. The X7400 has fax capabilities. It would be worthwhile to investigate which models in the Samsung line use Android tablets. I haven't begun to delve into the advanced features of these machines. It has been very helpful to have a unit of my own for making copies, scanning, and printing documents. It has the added bonus that my documents are always kept separate from those of others, so I am better able to identify and label which document is which by printing each and labeling it as I go. In the past, I had to hope there wasn't a stack of papers at the main printer everyone shared. Of course, I just had a reader identify them, but this new machine has somewhat decreased my reliance on a reader. I say that with the caveat that no machine can replace a human reader. Until OCR systems can recognize handwriting, human readers will be indispensable. Tai Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin Young via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:51 PM To: Blind List Cc: Justin Young Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Hello All! Hope this message finds you well! It was mentioned during the National Association of Blind Lawyers meeting that a message was sent awhile ago to this mailing list related to Accessible printers through Samson I believe it was related to using a tablet to make them accessible. I can't seem to find that message and was wondering if someone could send me the information related to that printer message? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to look at it. Thanks, Justin Young _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From jmccarthy at mdtap.org Mon Jul 31 22:13:56 2017 From: jmccarthy at mdtap.org (Jim McCarthy) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:13:56 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011b01d30a4a$4d5f1150$e81d33f0$@mdtap.org> Tai, I see how communicating with your multifunction office machine by use of an android tablet increases its accessibility to you. I am having a hard time following how this assures the statement you make, "It has the added bonus that my documents are always kept separate from those of others, so I am better able to identify and label which document is which by printing each and labeling it as I go," a true statement. Someone could still do a print job it seems and you not know whether it was your job or another. What am I missing? Jim -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tai Tomasi via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:02 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Tai Tomasi Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Hello. I was the presenter at NABL that mentioned this printer. I also sent a message to the list about it. The model I am using is the Samsung M4580 smart printer which is controlled by an Android tablet that has speech capabilities. My office is renting this printer for $20 a month. I am not sure what it retails for. It can print, scan and copy but does not have a fax machine. My office used the Samsung X7400 for a time and this printer also had an Android tablet for controls. The X7400 has fax capabilities. It would be worthwhile to investigate which models in the Samsung line use Android tablets. I haven't begun to delve into the advanced features of these machines. It has been very helpful to have a unit of my own for making copies, scanning, and printing documents. It has the added bonus that my documents are always kept separate from those of others, so I am better able to identify and label which document is which by printing each and labeling it as I go. In the past, I had to hope there wasn't a stack of papers at the main printer everyone shared. Of course, I just had a reader identify them, but this new machine has somewhat decreased my reliance on a reader. I say that with the caveat that no machine can replace a human reader. Until OCR systems can recognize handwriting, human readers will be indispensable. Tai Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission:  To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin Young via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:51 PM To: Blind List Cc: Justin Young Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Hello All! Hope this message finds you well! It was mentioned during the National Association of Blind Lawyers meeting that a message was sent awhile ago to this mailing list related to Accessible printers through Samson I believe it was related to using a tablet to make them accessible. I can't seem to find that message and was wondering if someone could send me the information related to that printer message? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to look at it. Thanks, Justin Young _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40mdtap.org From ttomasi at driowa.org Mon Jul 31 22:32:51 2017 From: ttomasi at driowa.org (Tai Tomasi) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:32:51 +0000 Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers In-Reply-To: <011b01d30a4a$4d5f1150$e81d33f0$@mdtap.org> References: , <011b01d30a4a$4d5f1150$e81d33f0$@mdtap.org> Message-ID: <5FD92C70-6DF4-445C-9537-445A7E3B3E45@driowa.org> I'm sorry. My statement has nothing to do with the fact that the printer is controlled by an android tablet. However, having my own unit with an android tablet allows me to keep all of my documents separate from the main office printer which is not controlled by an android tablet. I hope that clarifies. Tai Tomasi, J.D., M.P.A. Email: ttomasi at driowa.org Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse my brevity and any grammatical errors. On Jul 31, 2017, at 5:22 PM, Jim McCarthy via BlindLaw > wrote: Tai, I see how communicating with your multifunction office machine by use of an android tablet increases its accessibility to you. I am having a hard time following how this assures the statement you make, "It has the added bonus that my documents are always kept separate from those of others, so I am better able to identify and label which document is which by printing each and labeling it as I go," a true statement. Someone could still do a print job it seems and you not know whether it was your job or another. What am I missing? Jim -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tai Tomasi via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:02 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Tai Tomasi Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Hello. I was the presenter at NABL that mentioned this printer. I also sent a message to the list about it. The model I am using is the Samsung M4580 smart printer which is controlled by an Android tablet that has speech capabilities. My office is renting this printer for $20 a month. I am not sure what it retails for. It can print, scan and copy but does not have a fax machine. My office used the Samsung X7400 for a time and this printer also had an Android tablet for controls. The X7400 has fax capabilities. It would be worthwhile to investigate which models in the Samsung line use Android tablets. I haven't begun to delve into the advanced features of these machines. It has been very helpful to have a unit of my own for making copies, scanning, and printing documents. It has the added bonus that my documents are always kept separate from those of others, so I am better able to identify and label which document is which by printing each and labeling it as I go. In the past, I had to hope there wasn't a stack of papers at the main printer everyone shared. Of course, I just had a reader identify them, but this new machine has somewhat decreased my reliance on a reader. I say that with the caveat that no machine can replace a human reader. Until OCR systems can recognize handwriting, human readers will be indispensable. Tai Ms. Tai Tomasi, J.D. Pronouns: she/her/hers Staff Attorney 400 East Court Ave., Ste. 300 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel: 515-278-2502; Toll Free: 1-800-779-2502 FAX: 515-278-0539; Relay 711 E-mail: ttomasi at driowa.org www.driowa.org Our Mission: To defend and promote the human and legal rights of Iowans with disabilities CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of Disability Rights Iowa and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain privileged attorney-client communications or work product. Any dissemination by anyone other than an intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin Young via BlindLaw Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:51 PM To: Blind List > Cc: Justin Young > Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Multifunctioning printers Hello All! Hope this message finds you well! It was mentioned during the National Association of Blind Lawyers meeting that a message was sent awhile ago to this mailing list related to Accessible printers through Samson I believe it was related to using a tablet to make them accessible. I can't seem to find that message and was wondering if someone could send me the information related to that printer message? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to look at it. Thanks, Justin Young _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40mdtap.org _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ttomasi%40driowa.org From njaskins at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 23:26:51 2017 From: njaskins at gmail.com (Nicole Askins) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:26:51 -0400 Subject: [blindlaw] Doc Editing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for this. I might try a free trial of Jaws. On Jul 31, 2017 9:34 AM, "Stewart, Christopher K via BlindLaw" < blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > I think you'll find it easier to edit if you make use of a program > like JAWS or Zoomtext. I have no residual vision, so I haven't > experienced Zoomtext, but with JAWS, I know key commands that will > tell me everything about the font, style, spacing, Etc. of any MS Word > document. Also, as a federal law clerk, I work in documents with track > changes a lot. JAWS has a cool feature where I can switch the program > into what's called "quick key mode" and navigate through the document, > jumping from track change to track change. This ensures I don't miss > any suggested revisions. > > I would imagine Zoomtext has these same features, but it is also a > screen magnifier. Both programs are made by AI Squared. You can find > more at > www.aisquared.com > . > > Best, > Chris > > > On 7/30/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > wrote: > > Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to > > blindlaw at nfbnet.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Doc editing (Nicole Askins) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:59:13 -0400 > > From: Nicole Askins > > To: Blind Law Mailing List > > Subject: [blindlaw] Doc editing > > Message-ID: > > g at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Greetings all > > > > Embarking upon this law school Journey has revealed to me that I have to > > relearn how to do some very basic things as a person with low vision. > > Specifically, effectively and quickly editing documents. > > Usually, I magnify my screen to edit documents. However, this is > beginning > > to take up more time then I feel is necessary. > > I use Microsoft ease of access software. Currently, that is working for > me > > and I don't feel the need to upgrade my software. > > However, I have a question. Does anyone have suggestions as to the best > > method of navigating, editing, and using Microsoft track changes when > > drafting documents? > > The trouble I seem to have is if I share my document with someone, they > > make track change suggestions, yet the narrator we'll miss those > > suggestions. > > Also, is there another program or software that individuals who are blind > > or with low vision use to draft and edit documents? > > > > Last, are there any suggestions about formatting documents as an > individual > > with low vision? > > I have issues with my depth perception. This means that my document could > > be formatted incorrectly. Sometimes I can't tell because the screen is so > > magnified. > > My goal is to create precise and effective Publications without the > > assistance of a sighted individual. Moreover, I desire to demonstrate > that > > I am not limited by my sight impairment. I am certain that with some > > training I will produce a product that reflects my intellect without > > demonstrating my in abilities. > > Thank you in advance for your response with warmest regards > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BlindLaw mailing list > > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 13 > > ***************************************** > > > > > -- > Chris K. Stewart > Attorney at Law > KBA #97351 > Ph: > (502)457-1757 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail.com >