I seem to have gotten involved in an exchange with two people through
the addresses on Moustafa's mailing list going awry and even though I
have been copying them to this list Jason probably did not read my
exchanges with the other guy. I will repeat some of that here. I am
pretty confident that you have a moral system and moral standards, Carl.
We have not discussed it on this list, so I am not sure of the specifics
of that moral system, but I doubt that it was just made up by you
personally for yourself alone. But the other person was calling me
immoral, pure and simple, just because I do not adhere to a religious
set of superstitions. What it comes down to is that attitude is just
plain bigotry. It is the demand that you must think my way and no other
way or you are immoral and you have no moral standards. The other guy
did not seem to have ever heard of secular humanism when I told him
about it. He just kept repeating that I have no morals. Unless he has
sent me another message that I have not read he never did even
acknowledge that I had ever even mentioned secular humanism. But for
Jason's sake I will repeat what my moral standard is. I am a secular
humanist and as a secular humanist my moral standard is secular humanist
morality. There are various kinds of secular humanism and their moral
standards may vary from one variety to another, but what they have in
common is simply that that which benefits humanity is moral and that
which is detrimental to humanity is immoral and that which neither
benefits nor harms humanity has neutral morality. I am sure that some of
that morality overlaps with the various religious moralities, but
secular humanists do put humanity first. Religious types put their own
personal opinion first and call it god's will. Now, Miriam might want to
chime in with a description of the moral system of the secular humanist
group she used to belong to. But to just claim that you have to be
religious or you cannot be moral is just about as bigoted as you can get.
On 5/30/2018 3:17 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
It sounds, Jason, like you are speaking to Roger, but that never
stopped me from running off at the fingers. I believe Roger has
identifyed himself in the past, to be an Atheist. That would suppose
that he does not believe in God. And despite Roger's admonition, I
continue to present myself as an Agnostic. But my refusal to believe
or disbelieve is only in the context of the Gods Man has created.
On other subjects I have very firm opinions. But I quickly add, those
firm opinions have altered over the years, as new information enters
the picture.
And by the way, I am a very moral man, despite having no Spiritual Leader.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/30/18, Jason Meyerson <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks I will sign up.
I will address this email issue more in response to the prior email,
But I just want to point out your claim is that: you do not have
absolute certainty about anything.
The irony is that seems to be the one claim you make that is absolute.
You are absolutely sure you do not know anything absolutely. It is a
contradiction. Plus it is not really how you live your life. Of course
you know things, but the issue I will reply to in another email is that
your worldview does not provide a path to truth and knowledge as well as
some other important things.
I appreciate your forthrightness regarding this, and the dilemma is
unless you know were to know everything then you can't be certain about
anything, because in all the information we do not yet know, our current
knowledge could be contradicted by some unfound truth(s). So it is
appreciated because it appears honest and humble, however it is
untenable in reality.
Is objective reality something that you could be wrong about(in the
sense of its existence)?
The other horn of this dilemma is that knowledge is: justified true
belief. So by saying you cannot be certain something is true you are
giving up knowledge. You can never know anything for certain until you
were to know everything.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 00:03, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Yes, it is easy to unsubscribe. You just go to the same page where you
sign up and use the combo box to unsubscribe. Besides, like most email
lists links to manage your subscription are found at the bottom of
each group email. Now, Am I absolutely certain of anything I believe?
No. With a scientific viewpoint it has to be realized that all
conclusions are tentative. Of course, the evidence that led to the
conclusion has to be refuted by new incoming evidence and when the new
incoming evidence consistently backs up a certain conclusion over
years and years then I don't give much thought to the minuscule
possibility that it could be wrong. And I certainly don't fill in the
gaps of my knowledge by making up fairy tales.
On 5/29/2018 11:18 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
If I sign up, is it easy to get off of it later?
You could try short answers. But just answering one at time is fine
too.
Why would you write : don't you dare?
Also you are making some arguments that you seem to be having with
other people, not me.
I do not have a problem with not knowing, there are things I know and
things I do not know.
Knowledge is justified true belief. So when we are talking about
things we know they would have to be true, in an absolute sense.
Do you have absolute certainty about any particular beliefs of yours?
I think you are proposing or illustrating faith again, in that you
have found explanations in the past for things and so you believe
(have faith) that answers will be discovered in the future. Thanks for
that.
Also you assume the material answers you find are correct, it seems to
me. Maybe they are maybe they are not.
Jason
On 2018-05-29 22:01, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
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
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
