[blparent] Subject: Original Sin

Sat Jul 22 17:21:16 UTC 2017

Do not respond to his messages, anyone. He has 
been removed, and blocked.  He has invaded a number of our lists!

David Andrews, List Owner

At 08:58 AM 7/22/2017, you wrote:
>This subject is off-topic. I know I'm not a 
>moderator, but do you guys think you could 
>please take it off the list. I understand that 
>this list is to discuss parenting is blind 
>people. Not politics. Sent from my iPhone > On 
>Jul 22, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Bob Evans via BlParent 
><blparent 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 doesnâ€™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 Trumpâ€™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, Iâ€™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 doesnâ€™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 
>hasnâ€™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 didnâ€™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 couldnâ€™t. Itâ€™s 
>either >>> forgiveness or retaliation, it 
>couldnâ€™t be both. And as for Christ, how >>> 
>could an innocent bear the guiltyâ€™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. Jesusâ€™s date of 
>Crucifixion and resurrection differs from >>> 
>gospel >>> to another. Please, donâ€™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 
>didnâ€™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 donâ€™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 conceptâ€™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 wouldnâ€™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 
>doesnâ€™t do more than substantiating your 
>unprecedented >>> nescience. If Original Sin 
>wasnâ€™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-