With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

God doesn't need gifts.

Does He?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God does not need gifts, but He still asks that we give Him things that are important to us - thus the word sacrifice. It is not for Him, it is for us to prove our loyalty/obedience. After all, the reason Adam got kicked out of the garden was for disobedience. The bible indicates this is the reason we are here, to learn obedience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me start with a link of my own: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

The interesting thing is that even though, "Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental aasembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began. -- Bradley, p. 190 of The Creation Hypothesis", you are still trying to argue what has been rejected, even by the evolutionary scientists, for the past three decades. Why not just table this nonsense about random chance and go on to more fruitful pursuits.

I see you have fallen in with the RNA-replicator crowd. The problem with this aproach is that RNA replicators are self-replicating while RNA is a replicator which replicates DNA. (confusing termonology) DNA itself is stand-alone, information only, which does not duplicate/replicate at all. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Vaneechoutte.html

I notice in your list:

RNA replicators
RNA+lipid bubble replicators
RNA+lipid+protein replicators
DNA takes over information storage function, RNA mediates between DNA and
proteins
[many more steps]​

that you kind of wave your hands and say that RNA replicators just kind of "came into existance" without any explaination of how this might have been accomplished. You then say that RNA forms a kind of pseudo-cell within a lipid bubble (one of several current bubble theories - I thought lipids were storage fats/oils inside cells?). Then you jump from lipids to proteins (a rather large jump since you haven't yet described how the amino acids needed for the proteins came into being - especially since the RNA amino-acids are different from protein amino-acids and if you are inside a bubble, you find yourself isolated from outside production). Proteins are linear, long strings of the 20 different amino acids connected with peptide bonds, unlike RNA which is made up of only 4 amino-acids (some of the more complex of the amino acids since they include a hexane ring).

But, rather than go down the protein path just yet, let's stick to RNA. RNA, even the supposed shorter RNA-replicator, is still a very complex, highly specialized molecule - not something which simply pops out of the woodwork. A long strand of RNA requires both complex amino-acids (which are not stable by themselves) and sugars (ribose/RNA or deoxyribose/DNA) and a phosphate group to form the molecular chain. Where did these sugars and phosphates come from? They don't exist in a pure form in nature and even if they did, why would these amino-acids/sugars/phosphates combine in this highly complex way instead of in the simpler configuration of proteins? (...not that proteins are the least bit simple, only that RNA/DNA is far more complex). Where shall we find all these amino-acids together in a soup with the correct sugars and phosphates and how shall we chance to put them together in the correct formation in such a way that they "come to life" and start replicating? Searches of quadrillions of randomly lab-generated RNA sequences have, thus far, failed to yield a single spontaneous RNA replicator. While one might some day be found, this is still fantasy science until this event occurs (maybe never). Thus far, the cell is the only known self-replicating thing on the planet. Fantasy science about self-replicating RNA strands in proto-ocean foam is simply wishful thinking, nothing more.

Starting with RNA-replicators (which no one has ever been able to create, even in a lab) is like starting the age of flight with a fully functional fleet of F-15s. This is not remotely feasible.

'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History). (Schroeder, G.L. 1992. Genesis And The Big Bang, NY, Bantam Books, p. 25.)​

-------------
I have to laugh about the Phylum links - worms are the transitional forms between Phylum? Ha Ha Ha!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey SouthStar, are you still a nonbeliever?

 

A nonbeliever of what?

 

Eh.. I was only making one more reference to C.S. Lewis' 'trilemma' of Lord/Liar/Lunatic.. if you've seen that thread.

My point though was why does a Holy Book require such overt arbitrariness? There is simply no evidence whatsoever that God reprimanded Cain of intentions and rather to the contrary because of his actions. (As a sidenote, if such were the case, then God must have condemned Cain as guilty before he ever actually commited the sin).

Christians often accuse critics of taking verses out of context or forcing a negative eisegesis but here it is - (another) unfounded reading of the text.

 

Actually if lambs should have been unblemished then that disqualifies Jesus since his skin was broken several times by lashes from Roman centurions.

 

Nah, God gets off watching his son be beaten by sweaty boy-humpers.

I see that you're still not a Christian. Praise Jesus.

 

Tell that to the boy's Father

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By the way His Father says to you ...

Thou Shalt have no other God's before 'me'

Now it is good for you that God is patient with you but He will only be patient with you as long as Jesus intercedes on your behalf. Now given that your salvation rests upon that is it wise to turn round to God as you have done in your statement above and say "I do not accept the offering of Jesus, look how his skin was broken before the sacrifice was made"?
Perhaps you would like to explain that to His mother as well?
I only thank God that you do not actually see what it is that you are saying because were you to have a faith such as my own and said such a thing, you would be very heavily punished. As it stands you are not guilty since you do not know what it is that you are saying. But I tell you this... You have heard the truth and you will not be able to escape judgement forever. Please understand it is not God's will that you perish but when One hears what you have been saying and the spirit you have been saying it in, I , not the Lord, but I wonder how on Earth you are ever going to turn around. But then I am reminded in all humility that I once said very similiar things as the atheists say. Southstar, I know objectivity is important to you. You are a fierce debater and as such you believe that everyone must consider everyone elses viewpoint and naturally you want to be heard too. You say "Well if the God of the bible is to be believed then I see Him as nothing more than a murderer of man." I too really struggled with this but it wasn't until I was shown God's intention that I realised why God was sooo angry with man and it wasn't until I saw Jesus' intention that I realised that God's frustration with man was more than Jesus could bear for man such was His great love for the world. Jesus could not bear that we as weak as we were were going to have to be put to death given that His first intention was "Let us create living beings, like us".
God required that something be done, some intention must be shown by man that he will repent of his evil and turn back to the God whose first intentions for man were "Let us create living beings, like us".
But Jesus knew we could not stop doing what was evil and before you say "But I have always done good" I have to tell you that if God is not the first word on your lips from the depth of your heart the moment you wake each day then you have sinned. God is a jealous God. He is insanely jealous for your love. Now is He worthy? Well since he gave you life, little sweaty animal that you are, who are you to turn around and say "Get lost God, I have my own life now thanks to you sucker, so its not like I need you anymore is it!", even worse to say "Your son was just a loser too! Look, you sent Him and He wasnt even any good! Your stupid son got nailed to a tree and didnt save anyone. What kind of God are you anyway that you would enjoy seeing your own Son getting whipped by the Roman's?? Eh? Eh God? Eh?"
I mean you are 'bold', you must be assured of God's patience with you to be speaking like that?
We are little fleshy animals Southstar. Literally nothing at all! One blast from a large asteroid and there would be nothing at all we could do about it. It is like we are a child alone in a haunted house full of ghostly reminders of how soon our deaths will swiftly fall upon us. Now the athiest knows this and say's "See if there was a God, I would not be afraid but since I am afraid there must be no God?" But lets take that child in the haunted house shall we and change the sentence slightly so that we transpose the word God with something much much friendlier to the child...
As the child stands alone in the haunted house staring images of death in the face he is afraid and cried out "If my dad was here everything would be ok but since he is not dad must not exist! If he did exist he would be here now holding my hand."
Let us now suppose that a kind stranger sees the childs plight as he stands in the haunted house with his eyes firmly shut and says "Hello son, what is going on? Are you alone? You seem to be afraid, would you like me to guide you to the door so that you may go out and see the light of day again?"
The child also afraid of the stranger says "Ok, you go ahead and I will follow you."
"No problem" says the kind stranger, "Follow me"
Now the father says to the child upon seeing him standing there scared , "Why did you go off by yourself? I gave you money and told you to wait by my side until I was ready to take you inside but you thought you knew best didnt you? I knew that you would find it scary and I wanted to hold your hand but you ignored me didnt you? Always running off you are!"
The kind stranger sees the father's fear and not wishing that the child is punished any further says to the father "Aww I felt sorry for the little lamb standing there afraid. I guessed the whole experience was overwhelming for him"
The father says to the kind stranger "Thank you for bringing him to me! I had no idea where he had gone to! One moment he was here and the next moment he was gone"
The kind stranger pats the boys head and says to the father "Well I am just pleased to have been able to return him to you, although I am sure he would have been found eventually!"
"Nevertheless" says the father kindly, "He must not learn to run off!"
"Sorry dad" says the child.
The father's heart melts towards the son he loves and says "Come on you little terror, lets go and get ice cream to cheer us all up, would you like to join us Sir?"
"No thank you but it is a kind offer" says the stranger, "Call me a big kid but I could ride these attractions all day!"
The father smiles and knows the heart of the stranger, "Thank you again for your help today"
"It was an honour" says the stranger and gives the child a friendly smile before leaving on his way.
"Come on tike!" says the father "lets go on the merry-go-round!"
"Aww dad!" says the child "You said we were going to have ice cream!"
"That I did, that I did" laughs the father having completly forgotten all that was said before, "But I feel the ice cream would be more fitting after we have turned our stomachs over on those rides huh?"
"Ok dad" says the child face downturned.
"Come on son, forget what has happened, do not let your heart be troubled. We have eachother again and now we may have fun. Rides and ice creams, what more could a child want? After all its what we came here for?"
The child thinks about it for a moment and then slips his hand inside his father's, "I bet you are sick on those rides dad!"
"Well I would be if I ate ice cream before hand. Ha ha ha"
They bumped into that kind stranger a couple of times during the day and truly you could not discern any difference on either the strangers face nor the childs for both had wide smiles. It was only the father that looked a bit bedraggled from it all.
That night the father read his child a story about a friendly ghost. One that helped children who were lost. The child remember the stranger and asked his father if the stranger was a friendly ghost>
"No" said the father, "But I bet he is a friend of the friendly ghost"
"I want to be friends with the friendly ghost" said the child
"The friendly ghost wants to be friends with you too, thats why he is called the friendly ghost"
"We are friends" says the child as he buries his face into his fathers chest.
"Yes we are" says the father, "Yes we are"
"Goodnight"
"Goodnight"

peace

c20

 

Yo,

Quote Truthseeker:
"The bible indicates this is the reason we are here, to learn obedience."

Why? To become as slaves? What is it with this gods power frenzy? Isn`t this the dude who wrote our DNA code?

Smooth.

 

Again David, your logic is very faulty and no, I don't follow crowds. I took the list of steps provided by the NCSE to be an example of what could have happened. We obviously don't really know yet now do we? You even admit that one day a way might be found using the theory he suggested (not to mention other possibilities):

"Searches of quadrillions of randomly lab-generated RNA sequences have, thus far, failed to yield a single spontaneous RNA replicator. While one might some day be found, this is still fantasy science until this event occurs (maybe never). Thus far, the cell is the only known self-replicating thing on the planet. Fantasy science about self-replicating RNA strands in proto-ocean foam is simply wishful thinking, nothing more."

You know if it can happen at all then it could have happened on the first attempt. You still have disproved nothing. What you call fantasy science and wishful thinking most scientists call the challenge of discovery. Those who are severely biased at the outset only shrink from that challenge. As for your claim that no evolutionary scientist still believes that life on earth could have happened by chance and that evolution is dead, you will have to talk to the scientists at the NCSE since they work with them every day. Maybe they are talking to the RNA replicator crowd you claimed earlier had given up.

On the transitional forms issue, I knew from the start we would never agree on what a transition consists of. Obfuscation is the only way you can justify your outlandish position here. You say "oh, that's not REALLY transitional...." then just create another barrier. Good science admits its biases up front, then protects against them. You have demonstrated an opposite propensity.

 

Stretched,

It's not about God's power, it's about the way we lead our lives. Is it better to be a slave to your DNA, and let your life be ruled by whatever instinct seems more compelling? Why should that be called "freedom"?

We like to define "freedom" as doing whatever we like. Only after we've spun that illusion around us are we willing to admit that we can't do whatever we like. As long as we aren't made to feel accountable, right?

 

Yo Jenyar,

The illusion created by the fetters of religious thought and indoctrination is certainly not "freedom". A great deal of Christian thought directly and illogically opposes what is natural. In actuality, we can do whatever we like. If acting in an anti-social manner we will however come up against the restraints imposed by society at large, secular and religious. These are the practical limitations of free will. Only politicians, royalty and the superwealthy do not always have to face these obstacles in acting out their will. This indicates how "iffy" the concept of "freedom" really is. "Freedom" to me, is to be free from the pointless demands of societal norms and financial obligations. These are inevitably illusory, as I am sure you will agree. One can only ever be accountable to oneself. Only you retain the inherent right to judge yourself. Only you have to live with what is in your heart and your head. Handing guilt or regret over to a mythical deity is not having to face the consequences of ones actions. Facing the consequences squarely and moving forward notwithstanding, is the basis of true growth, humility and wisdom.

Smooth.

 

Dear Jenyar,

Do you consider it an expression of "freedom" when God ordered the Israelittes to seize concubines for themselves? Or when Paul recommended methods of subjugating women (not that I disagree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Now imagine those words in the mouth of a serial killer, the madman who like Hitler believes he is superior - and whose success "proves" it (Isn't that what you mean by "nature"? Justified by the fact of prevailing?)

If laws, justice and morality are obstacles, then why don't we praise those who overcome them? You can call them practical limitations, but that makes them sound like natural laws, just something we have to deal with, like gravity. That's not what they are. They are imposed. That's also why they're "iffy" - we have trouble imposing them. If the powers that impose them become corrupt, we don't adjust our morality - we adjust their authoriy (i.e. with revolution).

That "adjustment" should already tell you that the balance of power lies neither with the individual nor with popular consensus.

You take the ability to call something "iffy" or "corrupt" for granted.

Why do you call these demands pointless? Because they don't serve *you*?

They are only as illusory as we permit them to be. Happiness and peace might be immaterial things, but people will still give their lives to attain it. If they are illusory, we have a right to be surprised that they have conditions - rules and laws. But if they are ever to be realized, we should expect that only certain paths lead to them, and not all.

Do you really believe that? Are you then secretly glad that some people are "enslaved" enough to actually oppose corruption and immorality - so that you don't have to deal with it directly, or should they rather leave everybody to their own personal sense of accountability? Is something only "wrong" if it threatens you personally, or imposes on your personal freedom?

No, ultimately other people have to live with what's in your heart and your head, too. You're not alone on the planet, and you're not exempt from its problems. If it weren't for other people, everybody would be rich and powerful... or would they? Would their lives have meaning either way?

"Facing the consequences" is usually a sure way to run into trouble with someone - whether the law, your parents, your boss or anyone in authority. Because "consequences" aren't naturally causal. If you don't get caught, there are no consequences for stealing, murdering or raping. And the thief, killer and rapist rules supreme. The only way there can be nothing wrong with that, is if it's natural. If nature was the only authority, there would be no guilt or regret.

What is so humble and wise about crossing an authority? We end up with guilt and regret because we cannot move forward. When we have backed ourselves into a corner - that's when we regret. Before that, it's all big talk: "One can only ever be accountable to oneself. Only you retain the inherent right to judge yourself. Only you have to live with what is in your heart and your head".

Do you know what permits us to move forward when we have failed, fallen, transgressed and "faced the consequences"? Forgiveness. Rehabilitation, changed lives, better decisions - mental notes not to do *this* or *that* again... laws. Who forgives? The authority you have crossed - not you, your best friend, or your partners in crime. Definitely not nature.

"Growth" is only possible if death isn't your only reality, the only consequence you'll ever have to face. Otherwise the road ahead is obstacle free - paved with suffering, maybe, but that's only natural, right? What does it matter how you die, if it doesn't matter how you live?

When you find yourself backed into a corner and in need of forgiveness, how squarely will you face God?

 

I only consider it an expression of your ignorance. No offense. You're arguing from a decidedly Christian perspective, in the first place. If stretched's perspective was any guideline, then what's the difference between taking your enemy's daughter for a wife, selling her to people who have only their own consciences to 'feel accountable to', or letting her die in the desert?

It would also help if you provided references.

You read about the Egyptian man who killed his daughters because he had no sons? They were of no worth to him. Don't underestimate people's interpretation of "freedom", or the limits of your own. It's a gift. All it takes to lose your freedom is one terrorist who has other plans for you. How are you going to persuade him that your interpretation of freedom carries more weight than his?

Paul had a way: he compared our relationship with each other with the relationship Christ has with us, more - and pronounced it binding. To him, it's a matter directly dealing with God. He begins Ephesians 5 with "Be imitators of God". Keeping that in mind, now consider his words: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior".

What, then, is the relationship between Christ (the head, "man") with his body (the church, "woman")?

"Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". He is hardly hoarding himself over her. He goes on: "Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." How does a man treat his body - himself? He should treat a woman even better.

Methods of subjugating women?? Try again.

 

By that logic, then as soon as the knife starts slitting the throat of the lamb it becomes blemished and unfit. No, I think we have to examine Jesus at the point before the High Priest's guards took him from the Garden on the Mount of Olives.

I think it is even more important (as you already know - I am preaching to the choir here) to look at the condition of Jesus' soul/spirit and see that it was not blemished by sin. But you were just kidding anyway, weren't you?

 

My logic is faulty ... where please?

Why must I admit that something never observed and with no physical evidence might be the evolutionary path? I have explained why, even if these steps did happen they are not connected and one step does not lead to another. Some imagined self-replicating RNA molecule does not lead to an RNA molecule which duplicates something else - these are two entirely different processes. The existance of RNA does not lead to DNA - a totally passive, information-only molecule. There are numerous cellular processes and molecular machines which have nothing to do with RNA. These things are absolutely required for cellular life to exist. Where did they come from?

Why not show me something which actually exists or can be seen in fossil records rather than a list of fantasy items, not one of which has ever been known to occur - not even in the steril conditions of a lab.

 

Right...

Paul (and Peter, and the OT) many times tells women to voluntarily submit to their husbands but NOT ONCE does the bible ever tell a man to force a woman to submit. In the same way, Christians are to voluntarily submit to Christ just as Jesus submitted to the Father.

 

Thanks, it's very interesting. Unfortunately in David's case it still leads to the same conclusion. He asks for transitionals, new phylums etc, and then says "ha ha ha" when one is provided.

As you'll know, I asked several times for him to classify what he regards and considers as transitional etc, and yet he ignored every single request made. I have the feeling he was just setting it up for himself so he could say "ha ha ha".

I'm aware of this, as it is mentioned almost constantly throughout leviticus and deut. I actually started a big debate about it a long time ago here. But because you and I know that god wants meat/burning meat as sacrifices, how would Cain know? Cain provided what he produced; soil produce. We can hardly blame him that he didn't deal with livestock, nor should we expect him to have gone and killed one of his brothers animals. He made an offer of his produce, but god didn't like it, which is not Cain's fault, now is it?

God does explain his need for meat sacrifice later on in leviticus and deut, but by then it's too late for Cain.

Because god threw Cain's offering back in his face. I state that we would all get angry if we gave someone something and they threw it back at us, and had a go at us for offering them something they didn't want.

Of course. However, we never have to find that out because Abel was lucky enough to be dealing with livestock as opposed to soil tilling.

Not at all. god could have said: "Well, i'm not a particular fan of fruit, but it's a nice offering nonetheless. For future reference though, when I require more offerings, is it possible for you to just kill a cow for me?"

The result would have been Cain learning what offerings god 'needs' without any anger forming, or future deaths. That's how a normal parent would do it.

Of course being omniscient he must have known what outcome would arise from his whinging, and he should be smart enough to have figured a better alternative. Why whinge at the human when the human is doing the best he can?

But then, god knowing exactly what would happen - wasn't it god's choice?

You people are so quick to shout 'choice', while neglecting the fact that god also has one.

Cain wouldn't have got angry if god didn't bust his balls because his offering just wasn't good enough for mr perfecto.

Sure, as it's a part of all of our personalities, including god - who displayed his anger more than Cain ever did. We're made in the likeness of god, and as such anger is an important part of that. In this instance however, the anger could have been completely avoided, if dealt with by a better parent.

Yeah, god can't even work out what's gone wrong.

He's telling Cain that offering fruit is a sin, and that he must master sin and offer meat instead. If he's having a go at Cain for the future anger and murder of his brother, then not only will Cain not understand what the hell he's talking about, (unless he too has the ability of seeing the future), but he too will get the idea that god's busting his nuts over his offering - which will most likely make him angry and lead him to do stupid things.

The reprimand is clearly concerned with his offering, and not future events - unless you have something to back up the claim that god is talking future terms. As we find out in leviticus and deut, god has this thing for meat sacrifice/burning meat - which aids in showing that this reprimand was over the offering, and not some telling off for something that hadn't even happened.

We all have the capacity for murder, it's all dependant upon circumstances. For me it would be killing anyone who harmed my daughter, and for other people it would be other things. Now look at it from Cain's perspective. He had been rejected by god. His offering - the things he worked to produce, were not good enough for god, whereas his brother was shown all the favour. I would think that being rejected by god, and seeing god then give his attention to someone else, could easily cause many people to commit murder.

We need to ask if this was an actual problem with Cain, and an integral part of his personality. Tell me, is there any further instance of Cain killing people or causing specific problems? If it's just a one-off case of murder, wouldn't it stand to reason that Cain had merely been presented with the specific thing that would cause him to kill? And as a result, who is at fault for that, especially as it was provoked by a being that knew exactly what would happen because of his actions. In legal terms god is an accessory.

You have a child, who you show absolute love to, nurture and care for. Eventually, you have another child, and the older child very often has problems understanding and indeed coping with the affection suddenly shown elsewhere. In many instances this causes severe jealousy that can last for a lifetime. Generally it tends to calm down after a certain age, and sometimes it can be quite the opposite, (although generally with girls).

Of course we're not even talking about parents here, but god himself. How much more jealousy would be shown from parent love and attention to god love and attention? If your parents tell you off, and show all their attention to your brother - yes, you'd be jealous, but how much more so if god did the same?

Cain couldn't have put the curse upon himself. The curse involved the ground no longer "yielding it's strength" The only being that could have made such a curse is god, or perhaps the wicked witch of the east.

What do you mean? If you read it, you'd see the curse involved the ground, not Cain being killed. Remember that Cain was a soil tiller, and as such his work would be technically impossible from then on. That was the curse, and shows even more so of god's dislike for the actual offering as opposed to the murder. So much that he actually cursed Cain to not be able to perform his job. He didn't do the old "eye for an eye", strike him down, turn him into salt, ash or poop.. he cursed Cain so he could no longer be a soil tiller.

Only when you don't read it properly. Cain was cursed so the ground wouldn't provide for him. Nowhere in it was Cain cursed to die. As Cain could no longer do his job, he complained that he would be a vagrant, because soil tilling was his job.. In those days there were no job newspapers or websites.. he was truly buggered.

Either way, Cain would remain a vagrant, just nobody would kill him for it.

I always use logic, and I didn't ignore any of it. You just haven't read it properly. Kindly don't blame me for that. Thanks.