[blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin

Mon Jul 24 19:40:23 UTC 2017

My earlier point exactly.  Time to delete and move on. 

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Askins via BlindLaw
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:16 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Nicole Askins <njaskins at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin

Dear mr. Evans,
Thank you for making it clear that that's not your true name.
Because just as your name is hidden so is your awareness of anything related to Christianity and the faith there in I read thoroughly through your religious diatribe. I pondered you're arrogant religious assertions. It was very hard to take seriously. I won't go into detail. But I will say first, this is a listserv dedicated to assisting individuals who are blind and have low vision. This is certainly not the place for you to so arrogantly spew your assertions about your religious ideology over another's. Completely out of line.
Moreover, for you too so arrogantly suggest that your practice of faith is somehow Superior to any others is ludicrous.
You know nothing about the tenets of Christianity. You know nothing about the behavior patterns of Western people. And I know that because of all that you spewed here within this list serve. Quite frankly I'm not just offended by your statement I am disgusted.
Lastly, it is quite evident for me to conclude that your practice of religion is just that. Legalism. Religiosity. And has no impact on your personal Behavior, love kindness acceptance forgiveness and other practical practices of a spiritual person clearly escapes you.
The reason why no one wants to go toe-to-toe with you to debate your diluted ideology is because time is too precious of a thing to spend one such foolishness.
Perhaps, you should reflect on why you are thirsting 4 argumentation and validation. If you are so secure with your religious superiority, why do you need to pontificate? Perhaps you're still thirsty for something more.
On Jul 22, 2017 9:08 AM, "Bob Evans via BlindLaw" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
wrote:
>
> 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 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/)
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/njaskins%40gmail
> .com
_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com