The Blind Democracy list was set up some years ago to discuss certain
issues of internal politics in the American Council of the Blind. That
purpose played out after some time and the list turned into a general
chat list. Since most everyone on the list is interested in politics
that has been the main topic, but anything is allowed and blindness or
lack of blindness, disability or lack of disability is entirely
irrelevant. If you are not blind it is perfectly okay to subscribe. Now
you have a habit of filling your emails with a lot of very short
questions that require very long answers. So, again, rather than spend
the entire evening answering one email let me answer one question you
asked. How does a materialist account for the laws of the universe?
There are some hypotheses extant that have to do with the laws having
been established in the original singularity from which the universe
expanded and in the speculations about the multiverse it is proposed
that the laws of each of these universes were set in a similar way. That
would mean that the laws of our universe were set randomly and that, of
course, we would end up in the universe that just happened to have laws
that allow for our existence. However, this is all very highly
speculative and grows out of attempts to explain quantum behavior. Don't
you dare imply that I have offered that as fact. Whether these
hypotheses and speculations are true or not, though, is completely
unnecessary for philosophical materialism. It is enough that the laws of
the universe can be observed and measured. In any place and time that
they have ever been observed and measured they remain the same. That
means that they are objective reality. The task that remains is to find
out why they are objective reality. The attempts to do that is where
these highly speculative hypotheses came from, but in point of fact the
answer still has not been determined. Now, that offers me the
opportunity to compare materialism to idealism in this particular
matter. What it comes down to is that the scientific thinker is willing
to admit to not knowing things. In order to investigate and to discover
the answers it is necessary to admit to not knowing. Within the idealist
realm of philosophy there are the religionists who are extremely averse
to admitting to not knowing anything. So often in my life a religious
person has asked me to explain this or that mystery and when I say that
I don't know the answer the retort is, aha, it must be god. No, it does
not have to be anything until whatever it is is discovered. Not knowing
does not equal supernatural explanation. Not knowing equals only not
knowing. Furthermore, every time anything has been unknown in the past
and then the answer was discovered the answer has consistently been not
supernatural. Making up explanations and insisting that they are true is
intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
On 5/29/2018 10:07 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
I am fine to discuss with you personally or in front of an email group, but I am not blind. Is it appropriate for me to sign up for a list like that?
You mentioned there were other things like dimensions that were not matter or energy. I understand what a dimension is but did not know what you meant. I do not necessarily mean just what they are made of ( I thought maybe you were proposing alternate reality dimensions that did not have matter or energy), but that they exist in space as opposed to ???
But of interest is I believe you are saying the universe has non physical properties. I suppose like laws of the universe. How does a materialist of any kind account for this?
Your point about materialism is fine, but to me, regarding our discussion, the issue is whether you are saying everything came from nothing and does everything have a material or physical explanation (whether we can know it or not due to complexity and undiscovered things I get). I do not see how everything is atoms bumping into each other and there is a separate dynamic going on. So there is material matter/atoms bumping and a separate property(ies) of the universe like a law that either allows for or creates dynamics and dialectics? Why not just say it is a type of evolution of matter? You seem to imply that this property was there from the 'beginning'. On the surface it sounds like having your cake and eating it to.
Thanks for explaining things that you believe in.
Thanks
Jason
Thanks for explaining things that you believe in.
On 2018-05-28 22:53, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You cover too much here for me to have the time to answer it all. As I
was going through each of your points and questions I realized that I
had an answer for each of them, but to explain each answer would be
like writing an entire book. So let me just reply to some of it. As
for what I said about dialectical materialism and materialism in
general let me make it clear that philosophically I am completely a
materialist. I brought dialectical materialism into it because there
are different kinds of materialism and I have noticed that when a lot
of people hear the word materialism in a philosophical context they
tend to think of mechanical materialism. I am not a mechanical
materialist except to some extent. By some extent I mean that I do
recognize cause and effect and hold that effect follows cause. At the
same time I am open to the idea that cause and effect may not hold so
strictly in a singularity and that precludes me from being a strict
and complete mechanical materialist. And as for the concept that
mechanical materialism has been overthrown by quantum effects, I
suspect that there may be things happening in subPlanc space that
would rescue the mechanical materialist concepts that appear to be
contradicted by quantum behavior. Now, when I made reference to
aspects of the universe that are not just matter and energy I made
reference to multiple dimensions. You asked if that means that I
believe in them. I will say that things are looking pretty good for
dimensions that are other than the three or four we deal with in daily
life, but I cannot say that I believe in them with certainty. Then you
ask what these dimensions are made of. That makes me think that you do
not know what a dimension is. Think about this. When you talk about
something being so many centimeters high and so many centimeters wide
and so many centimeters long you are talking about dimensions.
Basically, they are directions. Time has been added as a dimension too
because in order to exist something has to exist for some amount of
time and the length of time may have something to do with its
durability and the changes it goes through. Now just how meaningful is
it to ask what a direction is made of? That question reminds me of
some of the questions that come out of Buddhist mysticism such as what
is the sound of one hand clapping? The question cannot be answered
because the question is based on meaningless assumptions or just plain
ignorance. But the only reason I even mentioned dimensions was because
I was trying to show that I do not hold that the universe is nothing
but matter and energy. Dimensions are examples of properties of the
universe that are not matter or energy. Now, you said that you do not
understand how dialectics modify plain materialism. Well, I gave you
an example of a dialectical relationship, the master and slave
relationship. That really is a classic example and I did not formulate
it myself. It is a classic because it explains the concept so well and
I don't quite know how to explain it better without giving other
examples that might not be so clear about it. But I will say that
while strict mechanical materialism holds that we live in a clockwork
universe with atoms bumping against one another and that the entire
universe is explained in that frame work dialectical materialism
offers more room to explain change in the universe through the
contention of contradictions, both broad and internal contradictions
within some or other concept that is usually thought of as a static
unit. As a matter of fact, since you and I disagree about the nature
of the universe we are engaging in dialectics right now. The point is
that the universe is dynamic and that dynamic is not controlled by
either just atoms bouncing against each other or by entropy regardless
of the fact that atoms do bounce against each other and there is a
tendency for the universe to run down and that tendency is called
entropy. Now, like I said, I do not have time to go through the rest
of your message and explain every point. Let me suggest something
else. The way we came to be communicating is that Moustafa, who seems
to prefer the name Bob Evans anymore, sends out his religious drivel
to people on his own mailing list, a mailing list that he refuses to
remove people from no matter how much they ask to be removed. That is
religious fervor for you. Apparently you are on that list and the
email list, Blind-Democracy is too. In replying to him I seem to have
replied to other people on his list too and somehow other replies
ended up on the Blind Democracy list. This led to a discussion between
you and me and between at least one other person and me. I have been
copying all messages in these discussions to the Blind Democracy list
because that is where it began for me and since other subscribers saw
the initial messages there and I am providing them a way to follow the
thread that developed. The Blind Democracy list is an anything goes
list, but most of the discussion is political and a lot of the
discussion has over time been philosophical like this thread has
become. I would like to invite you t subscribe to that list because I
think that would make it a lot easier to continue that way. If you
subscribe you can say anything you want, but do not expect that there
will not be a lot of response if the other subscribers disagree with
you. Then you can ask any of the other questions again that I did not
answer this time. If you want to subscribe go to
https://www.freelists.org/list/blind-democracy and fill in your email
address and use the combo box to subscribe.
On 5/28/2018 9:38 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thank you for the reply.
I do not think I ignored what you said, nor distorted anything.
I was not familiar with dialectic materialism, and quickly looked it up and based on what i read responded, I do not claim to have a great grasp of it. I asked if you were a materialist, you said you would like to be purely materialist but lean towards dialectic. You do not believe in just matter and energy? but other dimensions as well? And what would they be made of, how would they consist? Frankly I do not follow how the term dialectic modifies the term materialist. The bottom line in materialism as I understand it, is that the universe is made of matter and there is nothing supernatural, just the laws of physics and chemistry and you are adding some additional things regarding types of interactions between things.
I think one of our issues may be definitions. Your definition of supernatural somehow seems to contradict the actual definition. Supernatural is not something that is not real. You do not believe it is real, you say it is not real. Your definition which I am saying you have predetermined and dismissed an actual possibility, is that it does not exist. Something greater than the natural world is supernatural. And I already made the point regarding evidence.
Yes studying reality, but the question: is what is real. Your worldview of materialism cannot explain why science would work in the sense of things remaining consistent enough to do science. Is the universe a chance random universe? or something else? how do you know? Are things discoverable? How do you know?
The other word, faith, can have more than one definition, I am using the definition that is over 2000 years old. A biblical definition. it is a form of trust. I am not talking about a blind faith, that is not my position or definition. When someone tells you they are going to do something you can have faith in them or no faith in them that they will do it. It is based on evidence experience etc...
I did not ask you to prove a negative, I am trying to show you the proof, evidence. You have dismissed it out of hand and declared it absurd, but I am trying to demonstrate that without God, you will have a tough time explaining ethics, truth, reality etc... with out explanations that are just arbitrary. You are making truth statements and statements regarding morals but I do not believe you have any basis for them.
Your point about one proposition in infinity is amusing, but who makes up the odds you are giving? you. Based on what? It is not a valid proof.
And you are trying to use a logical premise which is good, but in your worldview how do you account for logic, an immaterial, universal, law. Where did it come from? And why is it valid (logic)? I am not saying logic is invalid I have a worldview that provides for logic, but you as a type of materialist, and have not demonstrated where logic comes from, why we should use it etc...
How is the supernatural absurd? The idea that everything came from nothing, is absurd, the idea that organization and life came from disorder and non life is absurd. The idea that physical material mater can just develop nonphysical properties is absurd. When you see information, life, complexity it is very reasonable to conclude design and designer. You do not have to conclude that, but it is none the less more than reasonable.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-28 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
In response to what I said you seem to largely ignore what I just said
and then distort the rest. First, how is it scientific to ignore the
supernatural? I just got through telling you that the supernatural
excludes itself because if ever anyone found out that a supernatural
proposition was actually true that would mean that it was not actually
supernatural at all and had not been supernatural all along. The
supernatural is that which is not real, that which is made up, that
which has no evidence to back it up. To accept such claims as true
cannot be scientific because science is the study of reality and
requires testable reproducible evidence. Next, you do not seem to
understand that asking someone to prove a negative is not even a
legitimate question. Think about this. Suppose a murder was committed
and the police, instead of looking at the available evidence and
following up on it, instead just opened a phone book and randomly
picked out a name and it happened to be yours. Then you were hauled
into court and charged with murder and without a shred of evidence
against you convicted you. I am sure you would be pointing out that
they did not prove that you did it. But what would you say when told
that you didn't prove that you didn't do it? Actually, the only way to
prove a negative is to prove a positive that contradicts the positive
form of the negative proposition. For example, how do we prove that
there are no square triangles? If every triangle we have ever examined
is not square isn't it possible that we just have not examined enough
triangles and that there might be a square one out there somewhere?
The way you prove that there are no square triangles is to show that a
square, by definition does not have the requisite characteristics that
define triangles. That is, the condition of the square contradicts the
condition of the triangle and so excludes the possibility of square
triangles. Without the positive concept of the square the proof that
there are no square triangles is meaningless. That leaves even asking
for proof of a negative meaningless. Suppose I claimed that ameboid
aliens from the Andromeda galaxy were burrowing into the brains of
epileptics making them have seizures. Would you believe me? If you
said no then what would you say if I then said that you can't prove
that they are not so it must be true? Again, there is an infinity of
propositions that can be made up with absolutely no evidence that they
are true and the probability that any one of them actually is true is
only one out of the whole set of propositions, that is, one in
infinity. One chance in infinity is pretty much the same thing as
saying no chance at all. So rejection of supernatural propositions is
not an expression of faith. It is simply rejecting the utterly absurd.
Now, as for dialectical materialism, I don't know where you got it
that I am saying that everything is matter and energy in motion that
over time develop other properties. I do not necessarily believe that
all of reality consists of just matter and energy. For the most part
the part of reality that we deal with is, but the cutting edge of
physics is finding some evidence that point to multiple dimensions and
the existence of any dimensions is apart from matter and energy in the
first place. It also appears that space itself has a fabric of its own
that is not matter and energy. There are also some other possibilities
that are much more highly speculative. Among these speculations,
though, is not one that is an invisible man with magical powers in the
sky. Dialectics, though, is an inherent characteristic of the universe
that is not developed over time or other wise. Apparently you do not
understand what the word even refers to. Let me use a classic example
of a dialectical relationship to illustrate it, master and slave. A
slave cannot be a slave without a master. If you take away the master
the whole concept of being a slave ceases to have any meaning. Also,
the slave master cannot be a master without a slave. Without someone
to force to be a slave the concept of master also becomes meaningless.
Yet master and slave are contradictions of each other. The slave's
interests are completely opposed to any interests that the master may
have and the master's interests are completely opposed to the slave's
interests. So there is a constant struggle between them. In order for
their relationship to continue to have any meaning they must interact
with one another and the interaction can never be any other than
opposition and struggle against one another, This results in changing
both of them. Now, if you look around you should be able to see many
other dialectical relationships in not only human society, but in
nature. Dialectics gives the universe a dynamic other than the dynamic
of entropy alone. Let me point out that these things are observable.
To believe in the clearly observable is not faith. If you want to
distort the word faith and call it trust then it is not trust either.
It is observable. Other things can be inferred from the observable
too, but even if it is not directly observable it is still not faith
to believe that they exist. Faith is simply the act of believing in a
superstition.
On 5/28/2018 9:31 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply.
How is it scientific to exclude out of hand the supernatural? Are you interested in truth? If so then how can you exclude some possibilities? IMO you would be better to just say you do not believe in the Supernatural, that is your expression of faith, because it is not an expression of truth or evidence. You presuppose that the universe and material are all that there is, without knowing everything you would not be able to say definitively that the supernatural does not exist, or preclude it from the discussion.
I also disagree, that people who claim the supernatural, all do so without any evidence. The question becomes what is evidence? What would someone accept as evidence? Complexity and design in and of themselves are evidence in every aspect of our physical world. Does not mean someone cannot reject it, but it is still evidence.
One line of evidence is the problem with materialism. You try and escape this problem by (in my understanding of what you are saying regarding dialectic ) saying everything is matter in motion, chemistry and physics but over time they develop additional properties. You are proposing, I think, that material only, develops non material functions? So matter that only has physical properties in a physical universe over time develops non physical properties. Disorder to order, no information to information, predeterminism to free will, no mind to mind, no morals to morals, no life to life. These kind of things are quite the leap and random interactions and time in and of themselves do not explain these things in the slightest.
Your point about probabilities is interesting but I believe flawed.
I am not talking about disregarding evidence, I do not have the same definition of faith you propose. Faith is trusting, and is based on evidence. It is not a check your brain at the door, blind leap, quite the contrary. In fact I think you display the kind of faith I am describing in a sense.
You seem to assert a line of truth exists and inherit in that is also a morality. How will your subjective morality be anything but arbitrary in a world without God. Whatever you think is right can only be your opinion and maybe the opinion of some others, and yet you seem to express your morals as if others should be subject to them or share them. Without out a supernatural personal God, you will not be able to defend or proscribe morals/ethics, know what is truly real and be able to defend logic, or really even do science. I know that is a large chunk of a sentence, but wanted to lay that out for you.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-27 22:20, Roger Loran Bailey 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
