[blindlaw] Question for the Moderator
Scott C. Labarre
slabarre at labarrelaw.com
Mon Jul 24 21:12:46 UTC 2017
Hello everyone, I think that Luis is right. I have seen far too many
discussions about religions and politics devolve into nothing more than mud
slinging events. Although there is no doubt that religious and political
tenants form part of our law, objective assessment of those factors rarely
are the focus of religious and political discussions. The purpose of this
list is primarily to bring legal professionals and law students together to
discuss the role of blindness/visual impairment in our lives and our
practices. I certainly do not think that trying to discuss the virtues of
Christianity verses Islam or any other religion are within the perview of
discussion here. There is no doubt that there is a diversity of opinion on
such subjects within this community and we must respect everyone's beliefs
and views. So it is best that we remain focused on the essential mission of
the National Association of Blind Lawyers and this Blindlaw list.
Respectfully,
Scott LaBarre
President, NABL
-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Luis Mendez
via BlindLaw
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:54 PM
To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Luis Mendez <lmendez716 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator
Were it possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion concerning the
role of theology in shaping concepts of justice and retribution this email
could serve as an interesting and wide ranging discussion on the role of
theology and natural law shaping governance and jurisprudence. Alas, such a
discussion is likely not possible and would only result in consuming many
hours in pointless exchanges.
Luis.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Stewart,
Christopher K via BlindLaw
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:22 AM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Cc: Stewart, Christopher K <chris.stewart at uky.edu>
Subject: [blindlaw] Question for the Moderator
Hello All,
I attempted to send this message yesterday, but received a notification that
my message was awaiting moderator approval, somewhat ironic given its
content. Anyhow, I think David Andrews is the moderator of this list. And,
if so, David, could you please blockt the address from which this, what
appears to be religious propaganda, is originating?
Best,
Chris
On 7/23/17, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org <blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Subject: Original Sin (Bob Evans)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:03:38 +0200
> From: Bob Evans <ebob824 at gmail.com>
> To: wuas at wake-up.org
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Subject: Original Sin
> Message-ID:
> <CADbUUH3edjsgwaprNdC8WMf-RVY_YOJ+RWUtmaKi12xrLK7Lyw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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/)
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 158, Issue 9
> ****************************************
>
--
Chris K. Stewart
Ph:
(502)457-1757
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/slabarre%40labarrelaw.
com
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list