Interesting. This is the first time I've seen Mostafa call himself
"Bob", but I suspected it was his writing long before reaching the end
of his rant. But despite the misuse of English, his position is very
clear. Mostafa presents absolute conviction that he holds all of
Truth in his hands. He is unwilling or unable to consider any other
belief than his own.
My reason for even jumping into this subject is that it draws my
attention to the broader issue that the Human Species may well be on a
headlong rush toward its own destruction.
According to some versions of Scripture, God warned Adam not to eat
from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge. But Eve tricked Adam, and
the rest is an agonizing tale of woe. Some say that next to that
tree stood the tree of Reason, and next to it was the tree of
Compassion. Too bad Eve didn't grab some of the fruit from those
trees.
But of course that is all voodoo from the myths we call Religion.
Mostafa wraps himself tightly in his version of this Made Up World,
and others do likewise in their own. Nevertheless, Ruling Classes
from the beginning of Civilization have used this Myth to their
advantage. And we continue to respond without question, girding
ourselves for battle against the "Evil One". Why can't we ever ask,
"Why"? Why do we believe our religion is superior, or the only one?
Why do countless millions of other people believe the same regarding
their religion? When the answer is, "Our Creator told us so", why do
we never ask, "Who created the Creator?" A friend of mine once said,
"Look about you, all of the beauty, the mountains and forests, the
rivers, lakes and oceans. How can you deny that this was created for
us?" "But," I said, "The person born in the desert will see the
beauty in his surroundings, and claim that it was created for his use.
Aren't we simply trying to use our surroundings as proof that it was
made for us? perhaps we have adapted to this planet, in the same
manner that other Beings would adapt to Venus or Mars. But whatever
we conclude, can't we see that the Ruling Classes have always used our
blind Faith to their advantage, turning one group against another?
And after thousands of years, why can't we see the futility of such
wars. Why can't we ask why conditions never get better for the
billions of Humans, but only for a very small handful of Elite? Are
we really so easily led by the noses?
I know that there are some folks who will damn me for my Agnosticism,
while others will rage against Mostafa. But such attitudes only prove
the concern that we are never going to find common ground on which to
advance our search for Peace and Prosperity.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/22/17, Bob Evans <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> 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. 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/)
