Carl,
This makes a lot of sense. We do need to deal with war, rape, bullying and all
the other ways we are aggressive toward our brothers and sisters. As my mother
called it, low grade Protestantism doesn't have very many answers. God
comforts those who are victims, but He doesn't do much to prevent it from
happening.
Humans invented diplomacy and conflict resolution. There is restorative
justice. We could use these methods a lot more than we do.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 8:21 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jason Meyerson <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Original Sin
From my understanding of Human History, if we avoid self extinction, we will
slowly increase our knowledge of this vast "home" of ours.
Spending time debating whether or not there is some Supernatural Being, is a
waist of time better spent in seeking ways of channeling our aggressive
behavior.
Whatever our understanding or belief, one fact stands out. We Humans have
become the dominant species on Earth, and we are fast morphing into a Plague, a
Blight, a Cancer. If we cannot learn to control ourselves, then what is the
point of any Supernatural discussion?
***Calling Mankind the Dominant Species should be understood to mean that
Humans are currently the major force that is impacting all other life on Earth,
but that life forms we call "germs" can sweep away all other life forms.
Especially if Man's bungling causes some new strain to develop.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/27/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
