|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 2:44:20 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 493
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
|
well PK if you wish to discuss the argument with me that was in your last answer to me then my email address is BibleL7@yahoo.com you can email me and I will try to discuss it with you. Sorry so many posts since my last one I lost track of what I had posted. Also in IM with old friend. BTW love the Avatar nice pic
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 9:49:41 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gazingstock
quote:
Is it possible that pursuing your advice would still yield a failure in trying to believe?
This is possibly the best and most spiritual point you have made PrexicKehdaki. This is a real situation I personally know of at least one other person found themselves in. Wanting to believe, but finding themselves unable to. Eventually desperately wanting to, and still finding faith would not come. You may have formerly believed, but it does not seem you received the Holy Spirit yet. Did you ask?
Yes, I asked.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gazingstock
Also, one of the biggest glosses atheists make is concerning the Devil. Which follows, because he is the one who blinds humanity from receiving of the truth:
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. -2Cr 4:4
Earth is a cosmic hostage situation. Everyone is a captive and doomed, until set free by God through repentance, acknowledgment of the truth, and faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection:
And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. -2Ti 2:26
You have heard misery loves company, and no one knows this better than Satan does. He is taking as many beings that God loves with him into the Lake of Fire as he possibly can, with all his might. Which is the 2nd Death:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. -Mat 7:13
Earth is much more an object lesson for the angels, than humanity, although certainly this changed with the manifestation of Jesus Christ. Who was an object lesson for both the inhabitants of Heaven and Earth. Faked very often B.C. and A.D., but never to be overcome by any other belief or non-belief.
If God wanted it any other way, would he be able to change it? Would he have been able to not create Lucifer?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 10:08:58 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Does that change who does and doesn't go to Hell?
Assuming you're referring to rejection of Christ, then yes, it does impact your eternal outcome.
Jesus said, "whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
God doesn't force belief or love, that would be rape.
In which case, the questions under "Hell_" are under this premise. Which you gave an answer to..
You seemed to give answers of understanding, acknowledging the reasons some may not believe in God or accept Jesus as his or her savior.. but then said everyone deserves to suffer in Hell.
I asked how that changes the reality of who does and doesn't go. For which you reply with this.. "God doesn't force belief or love, that would be rape."
I think most people who are victim of the reasons you acknowledged, or really any person who is sent to Hell, would rather be "raped by God" (or rather just have had a more evident God) then go to Hell. Assuming they feel God is a more desirable character than Satan.
My question to this is:
" Does a man who finds faith in God despite all odds have free will? Does a man who does not find faith in God despite all odds have free will? If yes to both questions, could he have specified in his design, in the general average psyche of his creations, more people who have the qualities that led them to find faith in God and avoid Hell? Is the choice to have most people fail to find him and go to Hell of greater value to him than a world, with no interruption to free will as demonstrated, where most people avoid Hell? "
(SavedByGraceMD has some questions about these questions, for which I plan to elaborate, so please find my explanation to him if you have trouble grasping this)
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
He does, however, present us with an option. Either love and serve Him, or hate and reject Him. I found it's easier to give in sooner opposed to later.
Neither does God rejoice in sending people to hell. You have the wrong interpretation of God if you think He's a puppet master in the sky eternally condemning people for nothing but the sake of condemnation.
If He didn't care for your well-being, He would've never sent His son as the ultimate sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. People must have some nerve to reject that.
You say he doesn't rejoice, which I won't argue, but on the subject of my questions, Why did he specifically choose the exact specifications in his design that would lead to the exact state today in which Biblically, most people that have lived are in Hell, and most people that are alive are going to Hell. I won't argue or say he finds joy in it, as that would be against the Bible, but he must've found the specification he chose to be of most value or desirability.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
But then again, with the advances of technology and ever-changing modern science, we have absolutely no use for that fairytale.
I disagree. Our technology, at least right now, can't provide some people with what religion provides them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 10:44:49 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
" In what way am I denying God by not being aware he exists when first examining the evidences of all the world religions, then not psychologically "clicking" with any of it to set the belief in motion?
By denying the evidence that He does exist, you deny Him.
It's more of a matter of it not convincing me. How does the quality of the evidence not being enough to convince me (and I have an open heart, I promise) a matter of me actively trying to deny something I'm not aware exists? You do understand I treat all other religions the same way. Their evidence doesn't convince me either, as I'm sure they don't convince you. If their religion's god exists, and it doesn't -- but if it did, would you and I both be guilty of actively denying their god? Or are we both just unconvinced by their arguments or evidence?
I think the confusion comes in the fact that 'denying' in a linguistic, psychological sense has a different meaning then in a Biblical sense.
I have no questions that I'm denying God Biblically, but when we're discussing a matter of psychology, motive, guilt, and reason.. I'm asking questions using the linguistic 'deny'. You can't possibly deny, in any psychological sense, something you aren't aware of unless you really are aware but are in denial. Are you suggesting atheists are aware of God? (gr, I probably shouldn't ask that.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2b6i8spEU ^-^)
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
Does this have to do more with me actively trying to deny God or me being (one of the above possible reasons)?
If you search for evidence that says He does not exist, then yes you are actively trying to find some way to deny Him, because in doing so, you are missing all of the obvious evidence that says He does exist. It is a choice you are making to lay aside the evidence of Him.
Trying to find some way to deny him? Or just tickling our atheist fancies with a good read? I'm not following you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
With the above in consideration, am I also in effect actively choosing Hell, as is the common apology? Can I choose to go somewhere I wasn't aware existed?"
Truth being told, you do know that hell exists, don't you. You may not acknowledge it as being real. But you know about it, and why it is there, and who goes there, and really all there is to know about it. So no that is not an excuse.
I guess this goes back to the "atheists believe in God" point in the video. ^-^
I know about Santa, I know why Santa hands out presents, I know who gets presents -- do you think I believe in Santa too? Because I know about Santa?
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
Can you specifically answer these? If you already did, I apologize for not catching it. It would help me if you were more specific to each question.
I would rather be seen as wise in the eyes of God, and a fool in the eyes of man, than to be seen as wise in the eyes of man, and a fool in the eyes of God.
and heres another quip for you
I would rather live my life like there is a God, and find out in the end that He isn't, rather than to live a life denying Him, yet to find out in the end, that He is.
Ah, Pascal's Wager. I think I'm allowed to address this directly since the argument isn't directly taken from the Bible.
Pascal's Wager is kind of an insult to people. It's so much of a salesman like tactic. Because it, by it's premise, ignores actual evidence and just goes with just the consequences. So, really, the scarier consequence you can conjure up.. the more "logical" it is to do whatever it takes to avoid it. It's more logical to never travel further than you need to by this line of reasoning. But enough insulting the integrity of the wager, here's where it fails..
Unless I'm actually convinced by the evidence and someone debunks opposing evidence, I can't possibly just choose to believe in God. I can say I believe in God, I can pray, I can go to church, but that doesn't mean I'm being true and God, of all people, should be able to tell if I really accept Jesus as my savior or if I really believe in him.
Life isn't a board game. I don't believe things based on probabilities of consequences. I believe things based on evidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
Here is a verse that I say answers all your questions Romans 1:19-21
19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. (NLT)
Are you sure I "know" God in any way other than Biblical? Do I psychologically know God? Are all atheists in denial?
I feel a dead end coming up with the answer to those questions. 
< Message edited by PrexicKehdaki -- 7/1/2008 10:53:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:11:54 AM
|
|
|
neetchym
Posts: 15
Joined: 6/14/2008
From: Raleigh Area, NC
Status: offline
|
God did not intend for us to be puppets that he controlled. What would be the point. In that case we would all be perfect like Jesus because God controlled the strings. But as I said before, God gave us freewill to make the choice ourselves. Even though he can see our future, he does not try to change it. YOU make your own decisions. I made my decision to believe based on FAITH. I don't need all the answers. The bible provides all I NEED to know. Have you ever read "When I heard the Learn'd Astronomer" by Walt Whitman. To sum it up, the man learning about astronomy finds that all the "answers" make him ill, so he leaves because he would rather just look at the stars rather than understand them. I don't need all the answers to my doubts (because I have questions too). It's like when you are a teenager and you think your parents have no clue, and you don't understand their ways, but as you grow, you understand that it was love that drove them.
God Bless 
_____________________________
When you stop, God starts!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:14:44 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
I have to leave soon, so instead of addressing each of your posts individually, I'm just going to say you have no idea what people have and haven't done in their quest for God. Nor do you know what I've done.
I'll try to be more specific when I get back.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:16:17 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
I don't have a high IQ. Is it possible that I will remain an atheist because of this? Biblically, will I go to Hell because of this? Did I choose my IQ, and thus, did I choose Hell?
This is a childish argument and does not represent the point psalms was trying to make.
I have noticed a few atheists claim that their intelligence keeps them form believing in God. Yet that is no reason, and just hides the fact that it is the persons pride that stands in the way. I think psalms was saying that even someone with a high IQ can believe in God, because if you look at all the facts without a biased mindset, all the evidence points to God.
I really don't feel you understand what I was talking about at all. I'll try to explain why when I get back.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:17:33 AM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BibleL7
well PK if you wish to discuss the argument with me that was in your last answer to me then my email address is BibleL7@yahoo.com you can email me and I will try to discuss it with you. Sorry so many posts since my last one I lost track of what I had posted. Also in IM with old friend. BTW love the Avatar nice pic
I'll try to remember to email you when I have time. And thanks.
Ok, I gotta go everyone.. sorry if I didn't get to your post. I promise I won't ignore anyone forever!
< Message edited by PrexicKehdaki -- 7/1/2008 11:31:06 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:40:54 AM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 756
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
" In what way am I denying God by not being aware he exists when first examining the evidences of all the world religions, then not psychologically "clicking" with any of it to set the belief in motion?
quote:
By denying the evidence that He does exist, you deny Him.
quote:
It's more of a matter of it not convincing me. How does the quality of the evidence not being enough to convince me (and I have an open heart, I promise) a matter of me actively trying to deny something I'm not aware exists? You do understand I treat all other religions the same way. Their evidence doesn't convince me either, as I'm sure they don't convince you. If their religion's god exists, and it doesn't -- but if it did, would you and I both be guilty of actively denying their god? Or are we both just unconvinced by their arguments or evidence?
Prex, I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing what you are doing, which is testing the truth. I don't really like the comparison to all other religions because only our faith lies in a true and living God. Buddha was a man who is now dead, Muhammed was a false prophet who is now dead, and so on and so on, so if you try the evidence for them, then yes they fall short. But I do see your point, to them we would be denying their God, but we know their God is not real. Yet most of the other religions acknowledge Jesus Christ was real, and some go beyond that while denying His divinity. It is all summed up in the romans passages I posted earlier, which you have replied to.
quote:
I think the confusion comes in the fact that 'denying' in a linguistic, psychological sense has a different meaning then in a Biblical sense.
To me, denying is denying. You deny to see the evidence of His creation, so you deny His word as truth. Denying Him biblically or linguistically is the same to me.
quote:
I have no questions that I'm denying God Biblically, but when we're discussing a matter of psychology, motive, guilt, and reason.. I'm asking questions using the linguistic 'deny'. You can't possibly deny, in any psychological sense, something you aren't aware of unless you really are aware but are in denial. Are you suggesting atheists are aware of God? (gr, I probably shouldn't ask that.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2b6i8spEU ^-^) So you admit you are in denial, finally we are getting somewhere.  
quote:
Does this have to do more with me actively trying to deny God or me being (one of the above possible reasons)?
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
If you search for evidence that says He does not exist, then yes you are actively trying to find some way to deny Him, because in doing so, you are missing all of the obvious evidence that says He does exist. It is a choice you are making to lay aside the evidence of Him.
quote:
Trying to find some way to deny him? Or just tickling our atheist fancies with a good read? I'm not following you.
Yes trying to find a way to not have to lay down your pride. Tickling your atheistic fancies by denying the evidence He has given us, and laying the credit on some unfounded theories. By looking out upon God's creation and saying it all happened by matter of chance, is denying the evidence God has given us. Pride gets in the way, we think we are to smart to believe in that God story, lets prove it wrong type of thinking, is looking for a way to deny God. Do you get this or am I mumbling jumbling bumbling things up here. I have the IQ of a watermelon, so it may be hard to understand. 
quote:
With the above in consideration, am I also in effect actively choosing Hell, as is the common apology? Can I choose to go somewhere I wasn't aware existed?"
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
Truth being told, you do know that hell exists, don't you. You may not acknowledge it as being real. But you know about it, and why it is there, and who goes there, and really all there is to know about it. So no that is not an excuse.
quote:
I guess this goes back to the "atheists believe in God" point in the video. ^-^
I know about Santa, I know why Santa hands out presents, I know who gets presents -- do you think I believe in Santa too? Because I know about Santa?
Sure we all know about santa, why shouldn't we, oh no, please don't tell me he is not real. Then who brings my presets every year. 
Seriously, as silly as that video was, it did make some good points. Like consequences, and the only way to live free of facing judgment is for there to be no God. Santa loosely based on a real man, the easter bunny loosely based on a real bunny, the tooth fairy loosely based on a real fairy, or on a real tooth, jj, I think you get my point. Stories do exist, tales do exist, myths do exist. What they lack is evidence. What God does not lack is evidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
I would rather be seen as wise in the eyes of God, and a fool in the eyes of man, than to be seen as wise in the eyes of man, and a fool in the eyes of God.
and heres another quip for you
I would rather live my life like there is a God, and find out in the end that He isn't, rather than to live a life denying Him, yet to find out in the end, that He is.
quote:
Ah, Pascal's Wager. I think I'm allowed to address this directly since the argument isn't directly taken from the Bible.
Pascal's Wager is kind of an insult to people. It's so much of a salesman like tactic. Because it, by it's premise, ignores actual evidence and just goes with just the consequences. So, really, the scarier consequence you can conjure up.. the more "logical" it is to do whatever it takes to avoid it. It's more logical to never travel further than you need to by this line of reasoning. But enough insulting the integrity of the wager, here's where it fails..
Unless I'm actually convinced by the evidence and someone debunks opposing evidence, I can't possibly just choose to believe in God. I can say I believe in God, I can pray, I can go to church, but that doesn't mean I'm being true and God, of all people, should be able to tell if I really accept Jesus as my savior or if I really believe in him.
Life isn't a board game. I don't believe things based on probabilities of consequences. I believe things based on evidence.
Pascal, who is that, is he real? Seriously I never heard of him, but you seem to have more knowledge than I so I will take your word for it.
But I disagree, I don't believe just to escape the consequences, but the consequences do show me the need for a savior. Does that make sense.
Of course faith in God and love for God need to be from the heart. We can put on a show for others, but not for God, for He knows the heart. That being said, knowing that there is consequences for our actions, and that judgment looms on the horizon, can show us our need for a Savior, which will lead us to Jesus. To get back to all the other religions of the world for a minute, I am no scholar on world religions, but I would guess that only Christians and Jews have a God that offers salvation, only we have a God who offers to save us. As unworthy as we are, He loves us enough to reach out His hand and say, take hold and I will never let you go.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
Here is a verse that I say answers all your questions Romans 1:19-21
19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. (NLT)
quote:
Are you sure I "know" God in any way other than Biblical? Do I psychologically know God? Are all atheists in denial?
I feel a dead end coming up with the answer to those questions.
You see, what this passage is saying is that we have all been presented the evidence of God. All of us. So in the end saying I didn't know will not suffice. There is a dead end, life always leads to a dead end. But that dead end leads to eternity. Where do you want to spend it? You can be with God in heaven? I know you know this. He is reaching out to you, and you know what He is saying. Take my hand, and I will never let you go. Hold fast to your faith and believe, and no one will be able to snatch you from my hand.
You see, I see one huge problem with not believing in God. You know what it is. Meaning.
So I pose this question to you
If you take God out of the equation, what is the meaning of this life?
4.6 billion years ago the big bang, through the eons, evolution, through life is death, and for what? To just be? Is that an existence you really want? No purpose, no meaning, no reason for being?
That is just empty, void, and not something I want. But there is a purpose to all of this. It is to find Him, or better put, to stop running from Him, because He is looking for you, He has left the 99 to find the one, and you are the one.
His hand is out to you, take hold, and He will never let you go.
May His peace be with you, and the joy of His love engulf you. Take care.
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 11:44:42 AM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 756
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
I have to leave soon, so instead of addressing each of your posts individually, I'm just going to say you have no idea what people have and haven't done in their quest for God. Nor do you know what I've done.
I'll try to be more specific when I get back.
You are exactly right, I have no idea what you have done in your quest for God. If you would care to tell me, I would be glad to read it and respond in the best way I can. I am no scholar, my faith is new, and I don't hold all the answers, but if I can help, I will.
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 12:01:55 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 975
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
Get ready for a science lesson  I'll do the science portion here the other questions in the next post.
quote:
Yes, but it didn't happen "by chance" so the point is moot. DNA probably evolved from RNA, and as we all know, evolution is not chance.
The RNA hypothesis is fairly recent and riddled with holes. The first of which the complexity of the proteins that make up the molecule. (We’re back to the same statistical odds that require an enormous leap of faith.) Second, the ribose within the RNA molecule is very unstable (it’s a sugar and reacts readily) and would not have been able to hold its bond in the assumed prebiotic conditions. For instance, the ester linkage of ribose and phosphoric acid in RNA is known to be prone to hydrolysis (hydrolysis is when a compound is broken down by water … so in the presence of water the ribose would break down before bonding with the phosphoric acid). Additionally, ribose must all be the same enantiomer ( enantiomers are two isometric molecules that are mirror images of one another … they are very important in organic chemistry because the way two molecules react to one another depend upon which sides pair up … this is also why the right handed and left hand amino acids are important … you can have two molecules with the same molecular make up like the sugars … they all have the same elements of 6 carbons, 12 hydrogens and 6 oxygens, but the way they are individually organized in a three dimensional configuration make them react differently to other molecules … this means there are even more possibilities which is what drives the statistical probability of things happening by chance even higher), because any nucleotides of the wrong three dimensional configuration will break the chain. These make it impossible for the RNA to DNA hypothesis to be plausible.
quote:
Early Earth was full of ammonia... NH3
This is an assumption. If there was a large amount of NH3 we would see the evidence of the remains in nitrogen deposits in the earth … and looking at the earliest deposits, there are none. (Hence my earlier post.) The hypothesis’ made about early earth are just guesses, there is NO evidence today that indicate the assumptions are true, in fact the evidence shows the exact opposite.
quote:
We don't have sediments from the time life began on Earth. The earliest sediments we have are several hundred million years younger.
You’re right, we don’t, but there would still be a large amount of nitrogen left even in the samples we have if the atmosphere started of with high amounts of NH3 … and there is only a scant amount. But your statement brings me back to the previous point … it is assumed that the atmosphere had a large amount of NH3 by some. This is just one of the many assumptions that some make in making their hypothesis plausible. They attempt to design the correct conditions for those guesses (and they are indeed guesses because there is NO evidence to back up these assumptions … in fact they will be the first to tell you they do not have the evidence that the conditions needed for their hypothesis to work). So what they do in their experiments is manipulate the environment to the conditions they would need to get the results they are looking for … this is a description of synthesis, or in other words, creating. This is not a description of a scientific experiment. And as pointed out before, the amino acids that they did make, broke up immediately … meaning they mad an amino acid for a brief second and then the elements broke apart and formed other, more stable elements that would make it impossible for life to exist.
quote:
There's an easy answer to this -- a filter that screens the amino acids
So you need to design a filter? There is no filter that screens amino acids into left and right that is not designed by man.
quote:
quote:
Dr. Francis Collins MD... brilliant by anyone standards, understands that there is a Creator behind the complexity of life."
If we're taking a poll of brilliant people, (and we SHOULDN'T) the majority think these magical deities are fiction. So we win.
Dr. Francis Collins MD is the head of the human genome project that discovered the blueprint within the last couple of years for DNA … he is the expert of all experts on DNA and RNA … and the discovery is the biggest thing in science. They discovered that the DNA strand is made up of 3.1 billion elements, all in a very specific orientation that is altered would mean no life. Which brings me to your statement:
quote:
Not true. If life is simply replicating molecules it can occur with far fewer elements than that. This argument is bunk, because by the same token I am made of a completely unique series of nucleotide bases, and if any one of them was out of place I would not exist. Does that mean I'm some kind of miracle? No, because if I didn't exist, somebody else would exist. If DNA didn't exist, we'd all be made of RNA.
First of, life is not “simply replicating molecules.” That was what was believed in the 19th century, the myriad of discoveries that have been made in the last 50 years proves life is VERY complex.
The discovery made by the Human Genome Project shows that it is far more complex than a few elements. Darwin stated in his book “Origin of Species,” page 154, ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” In Darwin’s time, their microscopes could only show an outer outline of a cell with a dark spot (the nucleus). They had no idea how complex the cell was, and assumed it was a simple organism. The more we learn about the complexity of the cell, and now the even smaller pieces such as DNA and RNA, the more his theory, by his own admission, falls apart.
The last part of your statement is just plain false. RNA is a messenger, it is not capable of providing a blueprint. It copies the DNA information and transcribes it to another part of the cell where that information is used to make the specific protein that is needed. No one knows at this point how the RNA knows to copy the portion needed to make the protein that is needed by the specific organelle making the protein to be used for the specific protein. Each protein is made differently and each has a specific function that cannot be duplicated by another type of protein. We have proteins that help us digest the sugar we consume within the individual cells. (That would be insulin, it “opens the door” to the cells to receive the glycogen that can be used for energy for that cell.) We have proteins that help form clots in the blood and proteins that break up clots. None of them can do the job of the other because of the specific way each is designed.
Each protein is complex in and of itself. Take insulin, if it does not have each element in the correct three dimensional order, it will not bend where it needs to bend, and takes on a completely different shape. Insulin has a specific shape and had areas of specific negative and positive charges … if it is missing just one element, it can no longer get the glycogen (what sugar converts to within the body) into the cell and the cell will die of malnutrition. The complexity of the individual cells cannot happen without a specific design. Even the simplest bacteria is far more complex to have developed by “simply replicating molecules.”
quote:
The folding of the DNA strand has nothing to do with the information. You're confusing proteins and DNA. Lol
DNA is made of protein ( Adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine are all proteins and their order within the strand is responsible for the information that the DNA provides) … the folds are very important to the way the double helix is configurated and has everything to do with how the information is stored. If just one protein within the strand folds the wrong way, the information is wrong.
quote:
Whatever you say about Miller is irrelevant, unless you can show that Miller's experiment is somehow relevant to our understanding of abiogenesis. It isn't. Miller's experiments are half a century old and were flawed. Who cares what he found or what he didn't find? Why not look at experiments that were not flawed, such as Juan Oro?
So are Juan Oro’s … if you recall, his experiment was made in 1961 … 47 years ago … pretty close to a half a century old. Miller’s work was considered to be more relevant because he did not manipulate the elements to the extent that Oro did. Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. But his experiments had the same problems as Millers … he based his experiment on Miller’s work and used the same high concentrate of NH3 with the hydrogen cyanide. Again, the proteins that were made did not last long, they broke up fairly easily. The thinking from almost all the scientists out there today is that the atmosphere did not have a high amount of NH3.
In every expriement conducted to date, they have made sure that there was NO oxygen in the tank, because if you introduce oxygen into the atmosphere, the proteins they are trying to make (remember the building blocks of DNA are the 4 proteins) and the smaller amino acids DO NOT form. So what they are suggesting is an atmosphere that has no oxygen so that these proteins can form, and then say these proteins come together and make a life form … but with out oxygen, that life form dies immediately, but if there is oxygen, they cannot form. Do you see the problem?
quote:
I would love to see your source. Even if it's not an online source. Let me know what it is. I want to read this book, or site.. what-have-you.
I have a ton … but here are a few sourses:
Persuasive Effects of Story and Statistical Evidence Journal article by E. James Baesler; Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 33, 1997
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA By William A. Dembski, Michael Ruse
Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe
Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (DDPE)" (edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer)
Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) and its Critics" (edited by intelligent design critic Robert T. Pennock)
The last two recourses are over 600 pages, with over 2 dozen articles both from the pro-intelligent design (ID) and pro-evolution viewpoints. It is the differences between DDPE (edited by pro-ID authors) and IDC and it Critics (edited by a pro-evolution author).
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/1/2008 1:31:59 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 975
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
" Where in the Bible does it say that someone that would otherwise go to Hell wouldn't if they were stupid? I'm not talking about mentally disabled. Just stupid.
Or are you saying stupid people always find belief in God? "
First question ... nope, does not say anything about how smart you need to be to get to heaven or hell ... second question ... nope ... stupid and smart people alike can find ways to believe in God, and can find ways not to believe.
One of my favorite scriptures is in 1 Corinthians 1:26 and following:
"Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God."
What this is saying is that God often chooses the foolish (stupid, the one who makes poor choices, the one who dug them self in a hole they can't get out) to make those who are considered to be the wisest, strongest and most powerful to look just plain silly in the way they do things. The ones' who are the lowest of low are lifted up, because it is God who lifts them.
quote:
Are you actually saying stupidity will never allow a person with an open heart to find atheist arguments more convincing to them than Christianity arguments? If not, with the best of your ability, directly answer the questions.
Oh my no ... just the opposite. It is easy to be convinced that something is true when it isn't if you do not think something through ... that's what critical thinking is ... thinking the matter through on both sides of an argument. Sometimes when a person is not able to understand a subject, they will end up believing the wrong thing. Sometimes they end up believing the right thing. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
What I am saying is just what Saved by Grace MD said ... someone without understanding came can believe in God without evidence, and someone who clearly understands can believe in God when looking at the evidence.
quote:
People who are actually trying to deny the Bible, while it is still convincing to them -- could they being doing so due to the events in their life?
Yes ... and fact it probably is the reason in most cases. (For events that may be caused by people ... ) There are so many people out there that call themselves Christians, yet do not act like they know Christ at all. They can be mean, hypocritically ... some are down right goofy! And those who walk with Jesus mess up all the time, which can cause someone who is watching to say, "If that's a Christian, you can count me out." A friend of mine made this statement, "If you see me doing the wrong thing, acting selfishly, hurting another with my words or actions, feeling sorry for myself, your looking at the real me. But if you see me doing the right thing, loving for the sake of loving, joyfully sacrificing for the sake of another .... well you're seeing Jesus in me."
Some of us have been through the ringer (in terms of events that have nothing to do with people) and cannot fathom how a loving God would allow these kind of things to happen. I have lost two brothers and my dad and that is just the tip of the iceberg ... talk about not comprehending what was going on.
But the thing is, we cannot look to another person for the solution. There is not a person on this earth that will not disappoint you ... including Billy Graham and Mother Teresa when she walked this earth. We will all let you down ... but there is One Who is it there for you in the midst of any event, any struggle that you may encounter, and is incapable of letting you down. As you get to know Him, know His character, understand His heart ... you can begin to see that nothing comes to you that is not first sifted through His loving hands, hands that filter with a perfect wisdom and an absolute sovereignty.
But ... we always will have a clear choice. And it will be one that we understand.
quote:
Perhaps they were abused by Christianity (or Christians, rather) or they hate the idea that their hypothetical atheist loved one who passed away is now suffering in Hell.
My brother was 14 when he died in a car wreck and had no relationship with Christ, I have had 4 very close friends die who had no relationship with Christ, my dad and another brother died a couple of years ago and I do not know for sure if they knew Christ. The idea that some of them lived through a living hell here on earth and may very well be in a much worse place breaks my heart ... it is a very tough struggle indeed ... but ... I know that God is good and He is merciful. I know He knows much more than I will ever dream of knowing and though He says we are to be His voice to those we love, and those we meet, that does not mean He is limited by whom we talk to. I know of people who cam to know Jesus in a vision, in dreams and one who met Him while in a coma ... so I still hang onto the hope that I know my God has done the right thing in each of their cases.
God is able to reveal Himself to someone without my help ... and without the help of anyone if He chooses to do so ... there are many that have never heard about the works of the cross by another human being, but I do not believe God is limited in how He reveals Himself.I know of a missionary to in Mexico that use to be the housekeeper to a missionary. Before taking the job she had lost both her son and husband, and was left all alone. She started to have dreams where a man would come to her and teach her. After a year of these dreams someone shared the bible with her, and she found that her dreams were actually passages of the bible, which she had never heard of or seen before. She believes the man she say teaching her to be Jesus ... so He used another means to bring her to Him, and is able to do this with others.
All that to say, it is so very hard when we lose someone we love who showed no evidence of them having believed in Jesus. But that does not change who God is, and it does not mean He did not love that person or gave them a chance to know Him. We may not know if about the kind of encounter they had with God, but we do know they had an encounter and made a decision to accept or decline at some point ... whether it was in a conversation with a believer, in a vision or dream ... or a way we may not have privy to ... but they were given a chance to choose ... and knowing my God as I do, it was a very clear choice regardless of that person's ability to understand ... He is both just and loving.
quote:
What reasons do you feel are acceptable for sending someone to Hell forever and what reasons do you feel aren't, if any?
The only reason that is acceptable for someone to go to hell is for them to to say to God: "No, I do not want to be saved by You."
quote:
You have to understand, Psalms, I'm booked. All the time I spend here is all the time I can. I can't cater myself to private lectures by you. Feel free to PM me with what ever you want, but I don't have time to give you special attention.
That's ok ... I'm glad you are so popular.
quote:
My question is what allows for our futures to be known rather then not yet determined.
Well, they are known by God because in His book it has already happened. They are to be determined by us because we don't have that foreknowledge ... this is really deep philosophical territory that will not determine whether you go to heaven or hell. I have yet to discover a person that has been able to give a definitive answer to this one. It's the same question about how freewill and sovereignty go hand in hand.
quote:
meaning that what God would be looking at is more of an infinite tree of possible choices we could all make
That's a possible theory to the problem ... He sees all the choices and has a plan for any of them you may make (mostly His plans are to get us out of the mess we made by making the choice! I know He is never surprised by my circumstances and has already cooked up a solution for it ... ) An infinite God would be more than capable of pulling that off. Is it how it works? Maybe???
You have a blessed day!!!
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
< Linus w/ a friends baby!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/2/2008 6:46:52 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 493
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
|
well I just gonna say it was unfair of you to put a cute redhead in your avatar its just playing dirty pool unless its a pic of you. But I digress cept to say it was reason I bothered to come back to thread and read the other posts. In response to your asking if being stupid or any of the other items you asked qualify you to go to hell the answer is that the question is invalid. See everyone is on way to hell just a fact you dont need to do or be anything different to qualify to go to hell. Now you do have to accept the free gift of salvation from God provided by Jesus to escape going to hell. Of course to do that you must be chosen by God who knows all things to be able to accept the free gift for unless the Father draws you, you will not believe. So is all God's and Jesus doing to determin if you are saved from hell nothing we do or dont do.
As to the youtube thing on atheists not existing I dont thin I would want to listen to a guy who would say that blond was most beautiful woman when the redhead in your avatar is 10 times better looking I not sure i would trust what he had to say so did not watch it would take hours on my slow puter anyway.
As to the Nature of God and His morals He is God so He can very well define any morals and with as many details He wishes as He created all things He makes the rules. We do not need to accept the rules He will allow us to break them yet there is consequence if we do break them. Once again He is God we are not so we can not judge His rules to be fair or not, we need only obey or disobey, understanding that obeying has blessings to it and disobeying has consequences. These blessings or consequences may or may not take place here on earth in our lifetime. See God is first Judge for that is the meaning of the word used in the Bible. Now God being loving and merciful He allowed us a way to spend eternity with Him instead of going to hell. See that is where the loving part comes in is that He is willing to extend mercy to those who absolutely could never deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions, questions, questions. - 7/3/2008 1:33:57 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
" In what way am I denying God by not being aware he exists when first examining the evidences of all the world religions, then not psychologically "clicking" with any of it to set the belief in motion?
quote:
By denying the evidence that He does exist, you deny Him.
quote:
It's more of a matter of it not convincing me. How does the quality of the evidence not being enough to convince me (and I have an open heart, I promise) a matter of me actively trying to deny something I'm not aware exists? You do understand I treat all other religions the same way. Their evidence doesn't convince me either, as I'm sure they don't convince you. If their religion's god exists, and it doesn't -- but if it did, would you and I both be guilty of actively denying their god? Or are we both just unconvinced by their arguments or evidence?
Prex, I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing what you are doing, which is testing the truth. I don't really like the comparison to all other religions because only our faith lies in a true and living God. Buddha was a man who is now dead, Muhammed was a false prophet who is now dead, and so on and so on, so if you try the evidence for them, then yes they fall short. But I do see your point, to them we would be denying their God, but we know their God is not real. Yet most of the other religions acknowledge Jesus Christ was real, and some go beyond that while denying His divinity. It is all summed up in the romans passages I posted earlier, which you have replied to.
quote:
I think the confusion comes in the fact that 'denying' in a linguistic, psychological sense has a different meaning then in a Biblical sense.
To me, denying is denying. You deny to see the evidence of His creation, so you deny His word as truth. Denying Him biblically or linguistically is the same to me.
They're demonstratively different. Psychologically, if I were to be unaware of someone's existence after contemplating the evidence.. I would not be denying him even though he is being "denied" somehow. I'm not literally doing the denying. Biblically, simply not believing in God is somehow an act of actively denying God.. regardless of the fact that I'm not aware he exists.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
I have no questions that I'm denying God Biblically, but when we're discussing a matter of psychology, motive, guilt, and reason.. I'm asking questions using the linguistic 'deny'. You can't possibly deny, in any psychological sense, something you aren't aware of unless you really are aware but are in denial. Are you suggesting atheists are aware of God? (gr, I probably shouldn't ask that.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bq2b6i8spEU ^-^) So you admit you are in denial, finally we are getting somewhere.
lol, biblically, sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
If you search for evidence that says He does not exist, then yes you are actively trying to find some way to deny Him, because in doing so, you are missing all of the obvious evidence that says He does exist. It is a choice you are making to lay aside the evidence of Him.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
Trying to find some way to deny him? Or just tickling our atheist fancies with a good read? I'm not following you.
Yes trying to find a way to not have to lay down your pride. Tickling your atheistic fancies by denying the evidence He has given us, and laying the credit on some unfounded theories. By looking out upon God's creation and saying it all happened by matter of chance, is denying the evidence God has given us. Pride gets in the way, we think we are to smart to believe in that God story, lets prove it wrong type of thinking, is looking for a way to deny God. Do you get this or am I mumbling jumbling bumbling things up here. I have the IQ of a watermelon, so it may be hard to understand.
It has nothing to do with pride. You gotta get rid of this "atheists are just trying to spite Christians" mind state.. or "atheists are really aware of God but for some reason God insults their pride so in order to maintain their pride they deny him". We just see the evidence differently.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
With the above in consideration, am I also in effect actively choosing Hell, as is the common apology? Can I choose to go somewhere I wasn't aware existed?"
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
Truth being told, you do know that hell exists, don't you. You may not acknowledge it as being real. But you know about it, and why it is there, and who goes there, and really all there is to know about it. So no that is not an excuse.
quote:
I guess this goes back to the "atheists believe in God" point in the video. ^-^
I know about Santa, I know why Santa hands out presents, I know who gets presents -- do you think I believe in Santa too? Because I know about Santa?
Sure we all know about santa, why shouldn't we, oh no, please don't tell me he is not real. Then who brings my presets every year.
Seriously, as silly as that video was, it did make some good points. Like consequences, and the only way to live free of facing judgment is for there to be no God. Santa loosely based on a real man, the easter bunny loosely based on a real bunny, the tooth fairy loosely based on a real fairy, or on a real tooth, jj, I think you get my point. Stories do exist, tales do exist, myths do exist. What they lack is evidence. What God does not lack is evidence.
Christianity is based on claims beyond just a possible "Jesus was based loosely on a real man" statement. The fact that Santa may have been based on a real man has got nothing to do with me accepting Santa's current mythical state. And the reason I brought it up, is that your point that I simply know about Hell is somehow me knowing it exists is about as valid as saying I know Santa exists because I know about his outfit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
Ah, Pascal's Wager. I think I'm allowed to address this directly since the argument isn't directly taken from the Bible.
Pascal's Wager is kind of an insult to people. It's so much of a salesman like tactic. Because it, by it's premise, ignores actual evidence and just goes with just the consequences. So, really, the scarier consequence you can conjure up.. the more "logical" it is to do whatever it takes to avoid it. It's more logical to never travel further than you need to by this line of reasoning. But enough insulting the integrity of the wager, here's where it fails..
Unless I'm actually convinced by the evidence and someone debunks opposing evidence, I can't possibly just choose to believe in God. I can say I believe in God, I can pray, I can go to church, but that doesn't mean I'm being true and God, of all people, should be able to tell if I really accept Jesus as my savior or if I really believe in him.
Life isn't a board game. I don't believe things based on probabilities of consequences. I believe things based on evidence.
Pascal, who is that, is he real? Seriously I never heard of him, but you seem to have more knowledge than I so I will take your word for it.
But I disagree, I don't believe just to escape the consequen | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
