Thee Real Facts about Ethiopia
Thee Willie Lynch Letter covers thee philosophies that may have been called Survival of Thee Fittest, Cast Systems and Thee Theory of Evolution in previous writings. Thee version I read thee first time was stolen so I re-purchased my second copy from Sankofa here in Washington, DC. A Lushena Books publication, readers may also find Thee Making of a Slave within thee pages of thee same text.
In 1712, presenting himself as an accountant, a slave owner by thee name of Mister William Lynch spoke on thee Banks of thee James River in Virginia to others that still believed in thee economics of slave trade. Mister Lynch spoke of thee King James Version of thee Bible as he sighted his points of reference to thee origin of slavery, thee aftermath of embarking it and most importantly what was truly lost because of its existence.
Order in Thee Court
This section of chapter five is about Cumulative Case Arguments. Cumulative Case Arguments is explained by Micheal Martin, an atheist. He contends that no theological case that argues there is a G_d [or theism] should be considered valid while resting its case on only one piece of evidence.
He does this by comparing the “Theistic Argument” to an ordinary court room argument. Martin states that a lawyer trying to proof his case in court would not rest his case on one piece of evidence because if the opposing side were to dispute that piece of information and win the whole defense of it would crumble. With that point, I agree. However, I do not know of any religion that bases their entire existence on one particular piece of proof.
I believe there are many pieces of evidence to support the theistic argument. For one thing G_d is truth, whether you believe it or not does not make the statement a lie or the truth for that matter. Atheism is a choice to believe you are not a believer in Theism. So instead they put trust in the science [of god] which to me is being very narrow minded. How can I think that a chair [Science] just magically appeared? What about the tree [the origin of the chair?] What of the seed the tree came from and the origin of that? The only answer they ever have is science, and I believe that is an incomplete response. That is supporting Atheism with only one piece of evidence. Is that not the truth? Secondly, why is it so wrong to know there is a G_d? Or the Devil for that matter ? Even the Devil knows that G_d is not fabricated in the minds of humans. Who taught us wrong from right? Some mad scientist that created him self in a lab? I don’t think so. That sound like science fiction not the truth. I could go on about the Godlessness of Atheism but to quote a famous singer “I’m not trying to give to church….”
Omnipotence
Thee Last Supper
Thee definition of critical rationalism is the view that religious belief-systems can and must be rationally criticized and evaluated although conclusive proof of such a system is impossible. If you don not have full on blind faith, known as fideism or you are not the type that has to prove your belief system with rationalization, which is a strong rationalist, then you are a critical rationalist by default. I believe my self to be a fideists’ with critical rationalist traits if I understand what I’ve read correctly. I believe this because I tend to use blind faith as my shield against questions about my religions ins and outs I may not be able to answer at the time. However, I realize that education on my faith will not necessarily give me the ability to proof any on my points.
I wish I could spend my time explaining why I thing I am a fideist but my assignment was to write on critical rationalism. So I will explain my traits. Sometimes I don not mind trying to prove my case but I am having problems gathering the evidence and even then the evidence may not proof anything to anybody, especially if they don not care for the point I am trying to proof.
I have a personal example. I believe the last supper speech gave birth to Vampire-ism. If I were a complete critical rationalist it would be my business to proof it to myself if I wanted to convince anyone else about it. Somewhere in the New Testament it states drink this wine it is my blood and eat this bread it is my flesh. Now, I know even in present times I could probably get stoned for this at the worst or argued down at the least. “That’s not what he meant!” “You’re not supposed to take it literally!” “That’s blaspheme and sacrilegious!” My point is and has been for a while now that the concept of living forever after consuming the real or fake blood of a very powerful immortal that could rise from the dead was G_d’s gift to Yesus long before Hollywood got their filthy little hands on it and ran away with the idea.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Yesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Yesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Yesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Yesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Life After Death
A man is being pronounced dead. His blood pressure is non-existent, his heart has failed, he flat lines. The doctor closes his eyes, for what appears to be the last time. Actually the man has embarked on a journey. Up the ceiling, down a tunnel and into a blinding light. To the naked eye that man is dead and gone, but to the the third eye [the minds eye] he is just resting before his resurrection.
Resurrection. One of the forms of life after death.
Resurrection : is defined as an act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead,
[from Latin] to rise again, from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re-+ surgere to rise
1]if capitalized: the rising of the Christ from the dead [b] often capitalized: the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
[c] the state of one risen from the dead.
3] Christian Science: a spiritualization of thought: material belief that yields of thought: material belief that yields to spiritual understanding.
As a Christian, of course I believe in the resurrection of Christ, but as an individual I also believe in the resurrection of the spiritual being. Just think for a minute, how many people die in their sleep never to be reported because they were resurrected. I think it has happened to me and many others. Maybe I’ll just get the doctors to diagnosed me with Sleep Apnea and sweep in under the preverbal rug.
In 1990 a movie by the name of Flatliners chilled audiences with scenes of soon to be mega film stars jumping back and fourth between life and death. Playing the role of medical students, they some how managed to figure out a way to get to the other side by being legally dead for a matter of minutes under the close observation of their classmates. While dead they realized the error of their ways and woke to try to fix the things they had done wrong as a child. Though these deliberate near death experiences were planed and the resurrection was a term for undergoing the procedure, the moral of the story turned out to be that death in any form is a powerful adversary.
Aaliyah or Dana Haughton prophesied her own death, by way of movies and music with titles “Rock the Boat” and “The Queen of The Damned” closing out their reign as hip-hop stars. Did she sense their impending deaths? Was her last projects a form of telling? We may never get the answers to these questions and many others we may have for the dearly departed. However baffled she left us one thing we do know is they have achieved a certain level of immortality by remembrance.
Immortality along with all other aspects of life after death has a tendency to be picked apart by the scientific community. Unlike resurrection, immortality is the absence of death. To be more precise it is the quality or state of being immortal.
Immortal: [a] Unending existence [b] lasting fame.
To take the word literally would mean to believe in things that never die. Like G_d, because even Yesus died for three days before rising from the dead. To believe the latter definition of the word means any one of us regular folk can aim for the “immortal”. So, the question here is, is lasting fame a form of life? If so, we live in a world of immortals.
In conclusion, there are far too many forms of supposed encounters with life after death for us to totally disregard the option that this spiritual phenomena could quite possibly be beyond the realm of scientific explanation. To think that a scientist could explain the afterlife is a fallacy of authority. For even they fall short of the knowledge needed to accurately delve into arena of the undead.
Emancipated
So what you got in your bag? I got a little bit of everything. I have been fortunate enough to have met some very divine people my life. My kids dad, Dennis Lee Bailey who showed me the American story about G_d, my moms West African ex-husband Celestine, and countless Ethiopian Orthodox Christians [The true holders of the African titles Ras and Empress]. To the naked eye, they do not have anything in common but if you get a chance to gaze at them when their not looking you will have see it. That thing they all share is an emancipated energy that fills the room, a vibration of liberation, an aura of abandonment. It is larger than life.
Five Percenters, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, and Buddhist, all strong, valid religions with different beliefs. Yet the believes of one does not weigh more than the other. The Five Percenters believe that they are the only gods worth talking about…until the bill comes due and Father Abrahams’ rent goes unpaid. The Ethiopian Orthodox Christians believe in the power of the holy trinity but the Rastafarians believe in replacing G_d with pyramid schemes. The Buddhist teach the importance of peace on Earth but preparation for war is a common to them as pray. With all these different ideals one may be left wondering what makes them tick. William Wainwright hit the nail on the head in chapter two of Reason and Religious Belief when he stated that their religious experiences resulted in their religious believer. That makes me think that no matter how different your religion is from the next person your religious experience it can have the same results.
The chapter did how ever leave me with more questions than answers. Such as what gives one the right to question the validity or authenticity of another religious groups experiences? Why are some peoples’ claims to religious experiences validated and more credible than others just because they have met a man made criterion? Why does my religious experience effect you? Do you have to meet a certain social or religious standard in life in order have an encounter with your higher power? If their was no language and we could only use our eyes to communicate would that be eye language? Why does 2+2=4?