[blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin

[Bob Evans]

Hello, thank you for your response. I just would like to append
further assertions. Based on your stark reluctance to tackle any of my
theological challenges, it is considered an implicit defeatism for
your camp. Protestants are not more than mere servants to Zionism. And
as for your Christology devotion, it is considerably undistinguished.
Your endorsement to the apartheid Zionist state is intrinsically
inalienable. Thence, our duty is to incessantly engage with you in
relentless combat missions until your party is perfectly discomfited.
Your ministry doesn’t base its tenets on nothing but an oblique hope
of a theoretical scheme of salvation. The assumption that someone
could have died for your sin is substantially Laputan and
consequently, it is unlikely to be rectifiable. In Trump’s damnable
era, your state of dismay has just started. Americanisation is quite
fragile and its global leadership is about to diminish. Your oval
office is  rotten to the core. Jews have constantly been dominating
your denomination since Martin Luther era and even earlier to that
time. There are many Muslims whom I knew have abandoned Islam to
Christianity. Nevertheless, I never fathomed the relationship between
becoming Christian, residing in the States and endorsing Zionists. I
wish you have got sufficient courage to tackle this challenge in the
slightest. I urge you to ponder properly on what I proposed. If you
ever perceived the demand to clarify what might be vague to you,
kindly, keep me notified. Best wishes, Bob




On 7/21/17, Marty Purvis <wuas at wake-up.org> wrote:
> Hello Mostafa:
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> Our views on religious matters are very far apart.
> So far, that further discussion would most likely be fruitless.
>
> Sincerely,
> Larry Wilson
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Contact Page Message <
> postmaster at wake-up.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Mostafa, technically Bob <ebob824 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Original Sin
>>
>> Visitor's Message:
>> Hello. I am Mostafa Almahdy. Bob Evans is just a technical name. I used
>> to
>> be called so when I worked at an American call centre here in Cairo. So,
>> it
>> is still my name. In the subsequent segment, I’ll present the Christian
>> narrative of Original Sin in addition to posing crucial queries and
>> denotative rebuttals. What is Original Sin in Christianity? It is a sin
>> said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam. When Adam and Eve
>> sinned,
>> death entered to the world. Thence, God demanded to be paid to redeem
>> humanity. He then sacrificed his only begotten son to ransom us. This
>> account may ostensibly seem to be reasonable. Be that as it may, it
>> contains major defects. First of which, it portrays the divine with
>> imperfection. It doesn’t recognise his omnipotence. Why? Because
>> according
>> to this theology, he demanded to be paid in order to redeem. At its
>> inception, I have couple of questions for clergy. First, has Adam been
>> destined to be eternal in Eden? Second, when he committed his ever first
>> sin, why hasn’t he been given one chance to repent? Third, when Adam ate
>> from the tree of knowing good and evil, he became like God according to
>> Genesis. A question here, has he been punished because he became aware of
>> good and evil? It is assumed that he didn’t know good and evil until he
>> ate
>> from the tree of knowing good and evil. So, how could God punish an
>> innocent? And as for sin inheritance, if a man and a woman committed
>> adultery, could we possibly hold their child accountable for what they
>> have
>> done? This is the precise logic exploited in Christian concept of
>> Original
>> Sin. And as for redemption and forfeiture, if God was paid to redeem, how
>> could he still forgive? If I supposedly wounded someone, does he has the
>> right to retaliate? Yes, he certainly does. And, if he wanted to forgive
>> me, could he still retaliate? No, he surely couldn’t. It’s either
>> forgiveness or retaliation, it couldn’t be both. And as for Christ, how
>> could an innocent bear the guilty’s iniquity? According to traditional
>> Christian theology, death entered to the world when Adam and Eve sinned.
>> Therefore, someone had to die for this. He had to be impeccant and, he
>> had
>> to die forever. Christians preach that Jesus is the one who paid for
>> this.
>> The question is, did he die forever? According to Christian story, he
>> died
>> for three days. Well actually, he died for less than that if you think of
>> it a bit. Jesus’s date of Crucifixion and resurrection differs from
>> gospel
>> to another. Please, don’t take my word for this. I urge you to just check
>> John nineteen and Mark fifteen. Most Christians today believe that Jesus
>> died on a Friday afternoon and risen on a fine Easter Sunday morning. As
>> for Adventists, they do not believe in this. They even have their Sabbath
>> held on Saturday. Christian innovation of Original Sin is remarkably
>> exposed. I urge southern laity and their associates to genuinely ponder
>> on
>> the scenario encountered in Christian theology. If Adam sinned and we
>> were
>> contagiously destined to be anathematised eternally, why didn’t Jesus die
>> forever then? I believe that my points are critical and thus, they
>> deserve
>> thorough attention. It is a bit odd to just rely on the thought that
>> someone theoretically died for my sins and then, go do whatever I want.
>> We
>> bear witness western Christians who basically don’t care about what they
>> do. They eat explicitly prohibited cattle, they vastly consume alcoholic
>> beverages and they carelessly engage in illicit wedlock. Where is your
>> devotional consignment? Religious life is the last thing a lay western
>> Christian wants to think of. I respectfully ask you to ponder on your
>> religious responsibility. As a Muslim, what prevents me from having a
>> girlfriend? Well, nothing but my religion which holds me fully
>> accountable
>> for either righteous or vicious deeds. Why Christian tradition is so
>> tolerant with the culture of boyfriend and girlfriend illicit
>> relationships? As you can see, despite the concept’s fraudulently
>> emotional
>> prettification, it is besieged with numerously irreconcilable
>> discrepancies. This is the primary tenet upon which your whole faith is
>> based, this is indeed the backbone of Christianity. If someone disagrees
>> with this statement,  well, tell me then, how could the account of
>> Crucifixion and Redemption be presented without basing it on the
>> Christian
>> concept of Original Sin? I seriously attempt to fathom. I do not intend
>> to
>> deride or ridicule. I am totally convinced that Christians have absolute
>> right to broadly proselytize, to keenly call for their faith. Yes, they
>> have the right to do so on one condition. I urge them to refrain from
>> using
>> fallacious rhetoric in their dialog. It just makes their stance quite
>> attenuated and thus, susceptible  to easily crumble under critical
>> scrutiny. I am prepared to be christened if someone convinced me with
>> plain
>> reasonableness that what you believe is the truth. I do not give credit
>> to
>> Christian portraiture of original sin. Now, if you want to convince
>> someone
>> to become Christian, you have got to explain this mystery to him. For
>> some
>> reason, it seems to be unexplainable to me. It looks like as if someone
>> worked it out or made it up. So basically, I feel it is quite perturbing
>> to  conjointly destine our whole human species to hell for no fault of
>> its
>> own. However, some pastors tend to baffle between holding the innocent
>> versus the guilty accountable, either instigants or actual actors. Pastor
>> Jacob of Michigan believes that instigants are not to be held
>> accountable.
>> Who is an instigant?                      An instigant is someone who
>> deliberately foments trouble. So, if hateful pastors provoked mass Muslim
>> offence that led to broad outrage, they are basically held accountable
>> for
>> any casualty or fatality rate. Similarly, if Muslim clerics caused hate
>> because of their radical speech, they are wholly held accountable for any
>> erupted tension  in the community. So, statutorily, instigants are
>> equally
>> held accountable just as actual actors. So, if a girl who is absolutely
>> gorgeous wore a staggeringly provocative outfit to purposely beguile men,
>> she is partly held accountable for the lust she consciously  instigated.
>> It
>> seems that    fibbers and  chisellers are not willing to address the
>> subject of Original Sin fairly. They tend to breach with decisive facts.
>> Therefore, their theology is incessantly subjected to critical criticism.
>> Some of them even asked me, whether we as Muslims are sure we are going
>> to
>> heaven. I wouldn’t ever assure I am going to heaven unless with
>>  providential amnesty. I would say it is unjustified pride if I ever
>> thought I am absolutely going to heaven. It just contradicts with
>> enjoined
>> humility. Islam teaches us to be pious and to devote ourselves to doing
>> good deeds. I on multiple occasions attempted to establish a mutually
>> deferential dialog with southern pastors. Nevertheless, they failed to
>> comply to this. Their level of timidity did not match with my
>> expectations.
>> I tell them, if you ever wanted to learn about Islam, it is not an
>> encouraging motive to obliviously quote oriental literature. First off,
>> you
>> desperately demand to develop proper command of Arabic. Moreover, your
>> prejudicial notion doesn’t do more than substantiating your unprecedented
>> nescience. If Original Sin wasn’t the fundamental belief of Christianity,
>> it would have not been used to constitute its doctrinal tenets. I civilly
>> postulate this theological conversation because I am quite interested in
>> comparative theology. For each faith, there are fundamental tenets. I
>> challengingly assert that without Original Sin, Christianity would have
>> not
>> ever existed. For emotional motives, the idea that someone died in the
>> cause of your salvation is quite appealing. However, as we saw, it has
>> many
>> defects if it is to be illustrated in moderately rational disposal. I
>> await
>> to hear pastoral response. But please, we do not need to either
>> equivocate
>> nor unconscionably philosophise the matter. It rather has to be
>> simplified
>> in a rationally straightforward manner. Beating around the bush has
>> intemperately fell at the first hurdle. Thank you for reading, Mostafa,
>> technically Bob Evans.
>>
>> --
>> This e-mail was sent from the "Contact US" page on Wake Up America
>> Seminars
>> (https://www.wake-up.org/contact-us/)
>>
>