When one examines the scriptures the same way one examines any other
historical document one uses some discernment to separate the credible
from the superstitious pronouncements of primitive uneducated people.
For example, the bible holds that during the time of Jesus the
geographical area in which he lived was under Roman occupation. That is
backed up by a lot of other historical documents and archaeological
evidence. It is highly credible and I am convinced that it is true. The
bible also holds that Jesus traveled around preaching. There is not much
in the way of back up for that contention, but it could have really
happened. That makes it credible, not as credible that the region was
under Roman occupation, but credible. Then the bible contends that Jesus
physically came back to life after he died and ascended to some place in
the sky called heaven. That is a pretty outrageous claim and something
that incredible requires some really profound evidence. There is no
evidence. It is hard for me to believe that anyone over the age of five
can be so gullible as to actually believe such unsubstantiated
absurdities. Anyone who claims to have the least respect for objective
historical research should be embarrassed to admit to being so gullible
as to believe in things like that.
On 5/26/2018 8:30 PM, Dan Boone wrote:
I will not take the time here to discuss everything that has been proven by countless others who have given their lives to study. Please allow me to say that when one examines the scriptures the same as any other historical
*From:*Roger Loran Bailey [mailto:rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Saturday, May 26, 2018 6:53 PM
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dan Boone; 'Bob'; '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'; 'Church staff member'; 'Charlie Isbell'; 'Chandler'; 'Carrey Cannon'; 'Cara'; 'Canadian'; 'British Council'; 'Brian Hartgen'; 'Brett Mehl'; 'Brad'; 'American'; 'Allen Dicey'; 'Alabama'; 'A. Fadden'
*Subject:* Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Original Sin
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
