[blind-democracy] Re: Original Sin

  • From: "Roger Loran Bailey" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
  • To: Jason Meyerson <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 22:20:23 -0400


The supernatural is precluded from being real simply by being supernatural. If a supernatural claim should be shown to be real then at that point it is determined to be a part of the real world and it is determined that it always was a part of the real world. However, that is irrelevant to those who tout the existence of the supernatural. They just claim that it is real without worrying the slightest bit about evidence and that strikes me as indistinguishable from insanity. It is a matter of believing on the basis of faith. Faith is the act of believing without any regard at all to either reason or evidence. If a belief by faith just happens to be correct then it is correct only by the wildest of coincidences. That is because there are a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right, infinitely more ways. If we disregard evidence or reason we can pick out anything to believe and there are an infinity of choices. That means that the chances of being correct are exactly one in infinity. Infinity, that is a decimal point followed by an infinite number of zeros before you get to a digit that is not a zero. And that means that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. Basing one's beliefs on the observed reality around us does not guarantee correct beliefs, but you do increase your chances to at least somewhere in the finite. Second, yes, I am a strict materialist. Now, after having said that I will go on to say that a lot of people have some pretty strange and false ideas about what a materialist is, but if you are one of them I cannot predict with misconceptions you have in order to refute them right now. But I am a strict materialist in that philosophical idealist explanations strike me as complete nonsense. As for free will, I don't know. I will go so far as to say that I am not a mechanical materialist and I gravitate toward dialectical materialism. So I do not hold to the concept of a clockwork universe in which all of our wills are predetermined by atoms bumping against one another. At the same time I will say that there might be some hope to salvage something like mechanical materialism. A lot of people say that mechanical materialism has been overthrown by the advent of quantum physics and its quantum weirdness.  I have my suspicions that quantum behavior could be explained by events going on in subPlanc space. However, at this time there is no way of seeing into subPlanc space, not even theoretically. So the question will have to be open for quite some time to come. Even if mechanical materialism is shown to be true at a subPlanc level, though, that would not preclude dialectics. There would still be contradictions in the universe that would depend on one another for their mutual existence and by interacting they would still change each other. But I do thoroughly reject claims that there is an invisible man with magical powers in the sky. It is really so insulting for anyone to approach me with the expectation that I will believe any such thing. It is insulting and offensive.
On 5/27/2018 9:38 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:

Roger,

Thanks for the reply.  Regarding this reply and the other one you sent regarding theology.
I guess the questions would be:
How do you know there is nothing supernatural?  Wouldn't you have to know 'everything' to definitively say there is nothing supernatural or non physical?  I am assuming you do not know everything, so the other question would be: could you be wrong?

Are you a strict materialist, meaning do you believe there is nothing that is non physical or supernatural?  How about free will or determinist?
Is science then the method for determining truth, for you?
What is real (reality) is in fact objective, I agree, metaphysics.  But many people have presuppositions regarding what is real.

thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-27 14:24, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Of course I believe in truth. And one big truth is that truth is
objective reality. It is not made up superstitious blathering found in
so-called scripture or holy books.


On 5/26/2018 9:58 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Do you believe in truth?
Thanks
Jason

On 2018-05-26 19:53, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
According to the scriptures? Okay, according to the Harry Potter books
wizards ride around on broomsticks. What does any of this have to do
with it being true?

On 5/26/2018 3:53 PM, Dan Boone wrote:

Bob,

�

You write much more eloquently than I do. However, Jesus used simple
words to communicate significant meanings, so will I. I have not
read most of your posts, but somehow thought I would interject some
quick points concerning this one:

�

1.) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has been historically proven to have been
written 15-20 years after the resurrection. This has been confirmed
by many notable skeptics to be the oldest actual piece of New
Testament scripture that has been found. It was also an early Church
Creed:

�

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he
was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers
at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have
fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one
abnormally born. NIV

�

We should stop and think about all of the ramifications that would
have happened if the above Scripture was not true considering the
time it was written and all of the people involved in the statement.


�

2.) Once a person realizes the perfection of a Holy God, and just
how significant that understanding is to the opportunity of eternal
life, then the same person will realize why sin had to be
extinguished by the propitiation of the One who was both Holy and
capable of sinning (the God-Man, Jesus)!!

�

Dan Boone

�

�

This message has been sent as a part of discussion between Church of
the Harvest of America, Inc., or one of its associated ministries
and the addressee whose name is specified above. Should you receive
this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you informed
us that the message has been sent to you. In this case, we also ask
that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not forward
it or any part of it to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation
and understanding.

�

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob [mailto:ebob824@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Scotty; Scott; Sam; Russell; Rick Harmon; Rev Mark; Pia; Peter
the hater; Paul California; Pastor Al; Ohio 3; Ohio 2; Ohio; North
Carolinian; Natallie; Nancy; Mssionary work outreach; Monica;
Missionary work associate; Miller, Clay; Mike Johnson; Matthew; Kids
Pastor; kchurchlady@xxxxxxxxxxx; Kane; Joe; Jews; Jessica; Jenn
Hanna; Jenifer; Jason of Fruit Cove; Jason Meyerson; James F.
Holwell; Jakob Jackson; Heather of Minnesota; Heather Kentucky;
Heather Judson; Hannah; Erin Mehl; Erin Conway; Dr. Bill Coates;
Donald Moore; Deborah Kerwood; David the Pastor; David; Dan Boone;
Church staff member; Charlie Isbell; Chandler; Carrey Cannon; Cara;
Canadian; British Council; Brian Hartgen; Brett Mehl; Brad;
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; American; Allen Dicey; Alabama; A.
Fadden
Subject: Original Sin

�

��� Dear all, peace be with you. Today, we inshAllah
are going to critically

readdress the concept of Redemption and Original Sin in
Christianity.

Original Sin is basically the backbone, it is the bedrock on which
the

doctrines of Redemption and Crucifixion are based. Original sin is
the

doctrine that Adam and Eve had offended the divine presence. It is a
sin

said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam and Eve as They
sinfully ate

from the forbidden tree. That led them to be taken out of� Eden
and thence,

had earned their descendance eternal damnation. As Christian
Apologists say,

someone had to pay the bill of this mass blasphemy and thus, God
sent his

only begotten son to sacrifice himself for the sake of humanity.
Whilst this

concept is� apparently�� consistent and
chronological,� it is not accepted

as it fallaciously seams to be. To this distorted concept, there are


theological and juristic objections. Theologically, this concept is
refuted

with the repudiation of condescending the divine to the temporal
pursuance.

Those who insist to disgraciously desecrate the divine by falsely

proclaiming that he had to die on the cross for their sins, or that
he had

to send his merely begotten son to die for� mass resentment,
they desecrate

the divine Omnipotence with imperfection. It essentially depends on
whether

you belong to those who consider Jesus as God without internal
distinctions,

a Unitarian, or you�re an adherent of Trinitarianism. No one is
absolutely

sure of who died� on the Cross or, if there was even a
Crucifixion in the

first place. The Christian Epiphany� is reprobated with the
Transcendent

Omnipotence of Allah glory be to Him to either atone or penalise
without any

discretion. Juristically, this concept is morally inadequate, for
what it

incorrectly consents of sanctioning the innocent for the sake of the
guilty.

On a judicial� level, justice is conducted with decisive
evidence and

incisiveness.� Christian Ministers constantly emphasise on the
emotional

aspect of their Redemption chronicle, without paying much attention
whether

it matches up to the principles of divine justice. I don�t care
how

affectionate the story might sound to be. What matters to me is, how
just

this concept is? I want Christian missionary activists to ask a
competent

jurist of their domestic residence, is it licitly excusable for you
to

punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty who justly deserves
retribution?

The conversation is temporarily suspended at this point. The
problem lies

over beyond a particular tree that has erroneously been eaten. It
worsens

when a particular race is intrinsically� depicted as cr�me
de la cr�me for

just its texture or complexion. This is what they modernly define as
racism.

The United States ranks as the topping racist nation worldwide. Its
racial

history is filled with disparity and ethnic secernment. It bases its


purportedly patriotic sentiment on often racial inequality and
topical

divergence. That is what we should rather call, Original Sin. Racial
acts

are enormously minacious to social stability and coexistence. There
shall

not be any tolerance of exerting discriminative practices, either on
gender,

ethnic, social or religious basis. That is our everlasting combat as
humans,

resembling the unity, peace and safety of our precious species.
Islam

doesn't bear our initial parents accountable for Original Sin. It
rather

recognises Lucifer to be the first sinner. His trespassing act has
involved

committing pride. Consequently, he has been expelled, depressed and

anathemised. As Muslims, we have a totally different concept
of� Original

Sin. I wrote about the subject because I believe it is of worth
noting.

Thank you for reading, Bob Evans

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.


https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Other related posts: