I gather that you are unaware that there is a difference between Jewish people
and Zionists. They are not synonymous. Not all Jews support Israel, nor do all
Christians, nor do all Americans. I also know that there are many different
kinds of Muslims with different points of view and who practice their religion
differently. We would all have a better chance of living together in peace and
harmony, practicing our own faiths and philosophies, if everyone could
recognize this.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Evans
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:04 AM
To: wuas@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Subject: Original Sin
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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Mostafa, technically Bob <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx>
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/)
