As to your final sentence that you hope this makes sense, it does not.
This time you are using the word accident to substitute for random, but
you do slip in that word random again later on in your comments. Using
either word, though, you are still repeating a creationist lie. It is a
lie instead of a mistake because the basics of the evolutionary
algorithm are known well enough by enough people that if creationists
would just try even the most cursory reading of what evolutionary
biologists really say they would know that and could not make false
statements about what evolutionary biologists say. Again, I did not say
that complexity arises by accident or randomly. I said it in my last
message and you respond right back at me as if I said that it was all an
accident. I do have a little bit of a problem, though, in explaining how
complexity comes about in an entropic universe in an email. But let me
try it this way. This is very sketchy, though, but like I said, I can't
write a book to respond to one email. There is a tendency for the
universe to change in the direction of less complexity, but there is
opportunity for eddies of upstream direction inside the overall race to
less complexity. The entropic direction of complexity is actually made
up of the tendency for energy levels to move toward the lowest state
possible and in any closed system that is exactly what happens. In fact,
the universe appears to be a closed system on the whole and it is
happening in the universe at large. However, the Earth is not a closed
system. Since its original coalescence from the solar nebula it has
experienced a constant influx of sunlight which is highly energetic. The
sun is, of course, running down, but for the last four and a half
billion years it has been able to maintain a steady output of energy
while it runs down. There are a lot of organic materials lying around on
Earth that can react with itself when these reactions have a source of
energy to power those reactions. Without a source of energy they would
just cease. Once a self replicating molecule was produced by this method
that could mutate and have a differential survival rate evolution was on
the way. That differential survival rate allows for the replication of
forms that are adapted to their environment and when they are in
competition with one another it turns out that increasing complexity
gives a survival advantage. Now, four and a half billion years is a
really long time and with this process going on the whole of that time
some very complex forms can be produced. There is no need for some
disembodied intelligence to direct it or to create it. Like I said,
there is a lot more to it than that, but the point is that it has been
actually figured out how complexity can evolve from less complex forms.
Calling it chance or accident is a simple out and out lie. No one claims
that it is just an accidental random process. When you claim that the
people who have figured this out are claiming it is random you are
repeating a lie. I am not necessarily saying that you are lying. You may
have just heard that claim so many times like I have and not been
exposed to the truth and so you repeat it while really believing it is
true. However, once you learn what evolutionary biologists are really
saying and if you keep right on repeating that lie then you are lying
too. Now, let me say something about what I actually call creationist
liars. I was once talking to a political comrade and using the phrase
creationist liars. He didn't think they were really liars because they
really believe in what they are saying. He did not understand, though,
that I was not calling all creationists liars. I suggested that he read
some creationist literature to see what the liars had to say that was
such lying. He had never read any of that and didn't want to because he
considered it a waste of time. Well, I am not going to say that he was
wrong about it being a waste of time, but I suppose I have wasted some
time reading some of it. I think I am in a pretty good position to tell
if a person has actually studied the topic of evolutionary biology and
here is why. For one thing, I have a degree in biology. For another
thing I have done a lot of independent reading on the subject. In the
biology department where I earned my degree amazingly enough there was
no course on evolutionary biology. That is kind of amazing because
evolutionary theory is the grand unifying theory of biology. But the
closest thing we had to it was a genetics course. However, I was
especially interested in evolution so I set out to learn about it on my
own. At the college library in the basement was a large collection of
bound volumes of professional and academic journals and among them were
bound volumes of journals of evolutionary biology. I used to spend hours
at a time in that basement reading those tomes just because I was
interested. I know that most people don't do that and, in fact, I
remember only one time that another human being ever came down those
steps to the basement while I was there. It was a librarian who came
down once because she knew that I was there and had been there so long
that she wanted to check to see if I was okay. Now, I think that my
formal training in biology with my independent reading on the subject is
enough for me to tell if another person has any knowledge of the
subject. As a result I can tell that most creationists are not liars.
They are just ignorant. The ones I have met show a low level of
education. I never actually asked how far they went in school, but I
would guess that most, if not all, of hem dropped out of high school.
But they know absolutely nothing about the subject that they are so
opposed to. Their understanding can be illustrated by this statement I
once heard. "I ain't never seed no chicken evolutin' into no cow." But
on the other hand, my independent reading included creationist tracts
and papers. Surprisingly, the writers of hes papers were not the kind of
creationist ignoramuses that I ran into in person. Many of them claimed
that they actually did have degrees in biology and I could believe that
some of them just might have. If they did not then they had at least
done some reading up on the subject. They showed that they knew things
that a normal lay person and especially a lay creationist would be
unlikely to know. The trouble is that in the middle of what they had to
say they would say things that were just plain false and it was about
things that if they had learned some of this other stuff I could not see
how they could have possibly been ignorant of the truth about the false
statements. Then when they did tell the truth they told half truths or
distorted the truth. There were definite signs of deliberately leaving
things out and portraying other things as meaning what they did not
mean. What it comes down to is that they were deliberately attempting to
deceive and it bothered me that people who did not know the subject
would probably be deceived by this stuff. A deliberate attempt to
deceive is lying. So that is what I am calling creationist liars.
On 5/30/2018 10:24 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Complexity from intelligence, how do we know? Everyone knows it. It is the natural conclusion the human mind makes when confronted with organization complexity and information. No one would ever imagine a language (like English, Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian Hieroglyphics etc...) forming by accident. And yet we have DNA. Remember SETI? Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. I do not believe in aliens, but if you were looking for them, you would expect some organized set of data unlike the kind that just exists in the natural world.
Books have certainly been written on both sides of the issue. My points are for 1. that to recognize that people believe in God and design and creation are not without evidence(which maybe we have partially established). While there are fairy tales, to chalk up the idea of faith in God as a fairy tale of unintelligence is just not accurate or true. You do not have to believe in God, but I am saying your characterizations of all people who believe in God is wrong.
This brings up point two, how do we come to terms regarding the evidence, how do we both look at the facts on the ground and yet come to wildly different conclusions. I say this or that is evidence and you say no it is not, back and forth etc...
A way through this is to look at what foundational views we have and see if they provide for the possibility of our beliefs. This is worldview analysis or looking at the preconditions of intelligibility or presuppositions.
Example- if you say all there is is matter energy and whatever else dialectic materialism provides for which does not include an intelligence, God or creator, designer etc... That ultimately the universe is random in the sense of it existing and life forming etc... It was not created with a purpose or by a mind just natural processes (and if this is not what you believe please give me a clearer view). My point would be then with your basic premise, the worldview and set of presuppositions. You cannot have true purpose or meaning in your life, you will not be able to have absolute morals/ethics, no basis for logic, no inherent human worth dignity, and no path to knowledge (explained in other email). Your worldview does not really allow or provide for those things. Mine however does. Now it may not matter to you and so if you don't care that the foundational views you have do not allow or provide for your conclusions that is fine, end of story. But if you think your worldview does provide for them, you can explain that to me or we can talk more thoroughly about why it does not and another worldview does.
Your search for truth and passion for knowledge your moral stand and ethical outlook, the care for the value of other humans and the continuation of humanity and your demand for logic are all good and we agree in a sense, but what you claim to believe foundationally does not provide or allow for these very things. That is a big problem. Without God you cannot have these things, so the argument is called the impossibility of the contrary. You say show me the proof show me the evidence, I say you have plenty and on top of that without God you have no basis for anything. And yet these things are vitally important to you, but you undermine them with your worldview.
Hope that makes sense.
Jason
On 2018-05-29 23:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Just how do you know that complexity comes from intelligence. It so
happens that it has been worked out pretty thoroughly how complexity
does not necessarily come from intelligence and that, indeed,
intelligence arises out of complexity rather than the other way
around. I could explain this, but again, I don't want to write an
entire book to answer one email. Besides, plenty of books have already
been written about it. But just how do you know that your claim is
correct? By the way, please answer with something that has something
to do with it being true. Simple statements like it is innate that
people will believe in fairy tale characters does not count as having
something to do with it being true.
On 5/29/2018 11:39 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The list of fallacies you commit is getting long in this email. Appeal to authority, for one, ad hominem for another.
I did not write a dissertation to you about this. Random chance is a part of the process, I mentioned time and mutation as well, we are taking about natural processes and explanations. Natural selection, chance and mutation if you want to talk about old lame ideas those would be good to start with.
You can add whatever you want to it. If I am repeating something that is old does not make it wrong. The point stands, incredible complexity at a level above any intellect does not make one think that it came together without a designer.
Information comes from intelligence. Living cells contain information.
I think your point is interesting about cars and factories and if we did not know about factories. But the problem is for one it does not matter, we would assume the car was made somewhere and deigned by someone and would never ever conclude after seeing a car that it came about by natural processes would we? and 2nd that everyone knows there is a God, I believe that it is innate to know God exists.
I do not think you biology degree gets you out of the problem of complexity. And I have no problem discussing biology nor would I avoid the topic because you have studied it.
I can introduce you to a PhD in or PhDs in biology and other sciences is that going to matter to you? So why would it matter to me?
I am not saying we do not look for natural explanations and I am not arguing for a God of the gaps. But I am arguing for the truth and reality of God and the necessity of God for the natural.
thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-29 23:09, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
I did not and never have said that anything that is ordered is ordered
by random chance. And that stuff ab out how complex the cell is beyond
what Darwin could imagine is another repetition of the tired old
creationist deliberate lie that evolutionary biologists claim that
evolution progresses by random chance. It does not! There is a random
component in the evolutionary algorithm, but the evolutionary
algorithm is not! random. Saying it is random when there is so much
research that shows clearly that it is not random is a flat out lie.
People who make that claim are flat out liars themselves or have a
poor education and have been deluded by those flat out liars. Now, in
what you have said you seem to repeat the fallacy of Thomas Aquinas.
He said that the existence of nature around us shows so much order
that it has to have a designer. I have had that fallacy expressed to
me in other ways. I remember one person pointing to a passing car and
saying that the existence of the car proves the existence of a car
factory. It does not! We know that cars are made in car factories
because we have plenty of evidence for car factories. We can go to
them and take tours. We can get jobs in them. They are a part of
objective reality. If on the other hand, we did not know about car
factories we could not infer their existence from the mere existence
of a car. We would simply not know where cars come from. If we did
some research and accepted the objective evidence that was discovered
by us in doing that research we just might find out about car
factories. But until we did we would just have to say that we don't
know why cars exist. And claiming otherwise is just another example of
how people who are indoctrinated by religion will not admit to not
knowing anything. It is another example of not knowing something and
just filling in the gaps with fairy tales and insisting that the fairy
tales are true. And by the way, I have a degree in biology. If you
want to avoid making yourself look even more foolish than you already
do you might want to avoid lecturing someone on a subject that he
knows more about than you do.
On 5/29/2018 9:58 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Every time you find or come across something that is ordered in your life you conclude design not random chance and time. You know the story of someone finding a watch on the beach? He has never seen a watch before, examines it, its complexity etc... and concludes reasonably it was made. Same for if you came home and your house or room was all straightened up clean and in order. would you assume wind? time? random chance? explosion? No, you would wonder who cleaned and straightened your room.
When you look at a cell, which is so ridiculously complex (way more than Darwin ever dreamed) it has mechanical working parts, complex interactions, waste removal, defense, repair abilities, transport mechanisms, etc... , when you look at DNA (a code of information, an instruction book) that is self replicating has a repair feature etc... These things are so complex and organized, and many things in our world that are man made or much less complicated and you would never think for a second they could happen by random chance time and mutation. There are no natural processes that would clean your room, that would create a bicycle a building a calculator etc... And yet you believe that strictly natural processes can make some thing as complicated as DNA and living things? The smartest people in the world with the best equipment available could not make anything like either of these.
Also the laws of the universe are set up just so specifically and carefully that the possibility of life is there.
Hope that makes sense. I am not saying you have to agree with me at this point, I am saying it is more than reasonable to conclude design and not very reasonable to conclude natural processes. Who is the designer? God the Creator God of the Bible, but that is a different discussion.
On top of this, like I have mentioned, without God you also will have no path to meaning, human value, ethics/morals, or absolute truth etc..
On 2018-05-29 21:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Just how is the existence of order evidence for some invisible man in
the sky with magical powers when there are so many perfectly good
explanations of how natural processes brought it about?
On 5/29/2018 9:44 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Carl,
Thanks for the email.
Evidence does not negate faith, this comes again to the definition. Believe, belief and faith are connected. We do not say in English I faithed, we say we believe or I believed. Do we believe things based on evidence and reason? Hopefully we do. Your insult, in your email, regarding belief and reasoning even imply the connection. While there can be a type of faith, a definition of faith that is a leap, and people do make those types of leaps and have that kind of faith, that is not what I am talking about. Whatever it is you believe even if it is in nothing is a faith or form of faith (not necessarily religion) because you do not know everything, you believe something to be true. That is the idea.
As to evidence, I have presented several lines of evidence to Roger in emails to him, including asking what evidence would be. For one we have order organization and complexity in our lives and universe. This clearly implies a creator, meaning in every aspect of life when we find order and organization and complexity we never assume random chance and time as the culprit, we always assume a designer. Additionally we have ethics and morals, which would be nothing more than arbitrary opinions if there is no God. I the basis for logic and its origins, and the idea of physical matter developing non physical properties.
I do think I am getting Roger's reasoning, I just find it lacking in many ways.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-29 00:37, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Roger, you have embarked upon an Impossible Mission. While I
appreciate your discussions, and learn from them, any belief that your
reasoning is being received is simply a flight into Never Never Land.
Jason wrote: "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."
But he does not explain what he means by "evidence". In my mind,
evidence would negate Faith.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
