• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nonbelievers to Hell!

Starsoul

Truth
CONTD---



Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.


Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.


The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.


However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.


Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.
Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations.


Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches.


Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.
Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve did possess such genes.


All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.


Science cannot yet prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.


What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!


Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?


Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.


The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.


It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.
 

Starsoul

Truth
>>Meow Mix>>You're arguing against your own case, considering holy texts were written by men; and we're expected to believe people gods exist because they say so, or some book written by men says so.
Its You who considers that holy texts were written by man,They are the words of God, and there's no denying that. Some arrogant self conceited men dared to change the few to suit to their own desires, like the bible and the torah, but Quran is ever the same. Ask any Scientist who has examined the books.

Its so surprising that people don't question the monkey- tale epic of darwin which is just ridiculous to say the least, but they have a lot of brain storming uproars regarding holy texts as unholy, when all they have read is their school text books.
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.
And therefore God? Really? Because I could equally use that argument and say "Therefore, high-dimensional structures colliding."
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Ugh, I'm sitting out on the evolution debate... burned myself out on that one back in high school and shortly after; plus I haven't really kept up with biology.

I'll handle any physics that comes up though.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Its You who considers that holy texts were written by man,They are the words of God, and there's no denying that. Some arrogant self conceited men dared to change the few to suit to their own desires, like the bible and the torah, but Quran is ever the same. Ask any Scientist who has examined the books.

Its so surprising that people don't question the monkey- tale epic of darwin which is just ridiculous to say the least, but they have a lot of brain storming uproars regarding holy texts as unholy, when all they have read is their school text books.

Is your thinking typical of Muslims you know, or is there a diversity of belief among them?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
i guess he's pretty lax about the cheek turning too. man, jesus is turning out to be the best babysitter ever.

There is nothing easy about turning the other cheek.
In fact....it is aggressive.
Try it sometime.

Someone slams your face...drops you to the ground.
You get up and while looking your attacker in the eye....offer your other cheek.

You had better know what you are doing.
You could end up in the hospital.
 
There is nothing easy about turning the other cheek.
In fact....it is aggressive.
Try it sometime.

Someone slams your face...drops you to the ground.
You get up and while looking your attacker in the eye....offer your other cheek.

You had better know what you are doing.
You could end up in the hospital.

That's the truth! :yes: And I think that also applies to verbal assaults as well.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I don't know how much validation there is for this but someone was telling me the other day is that the reason you offer the other cheek is indeed an aggressive act:

there were a lot of beliefs about which hand you used back then; namely that using the left hand was shameful.

So if someone strikes you, and you turn your other cheek, it means that now they have to backhand you (and shame themselves) or use their left arm to strike you again (and shame themselves.)

Again, don't know how true that is, but thought it was interesting.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
An excerpt from the well known French Biologist,

"Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) after long carried researches refuted the foundation of the theory that bases evolution as the origin of life forms and Humans.'Can matter organize itself? No! Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves.'

Louis Pasteur, Fox& Dose, Origin of Life, P-4,5).

The Case Against Darwin.

The case against Darwin

Firstly, evolution and abiogenesis are seperate diciplines. The former deals with how life arrives at a current point in its development, the latter deals with the origins of life.

And yes, there are several hypothesis that explain abiogenesis quite well.

Secondly, Pasture did not have access to the research tools and fossil evidence we have today. Radio-Carbon Dating, for one obvious example, wasn't invented until nearly 50 years after his death.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I don't know how much validation there is for this but someone was telling me the other day is that the reason you offer the other cheek is indeed an aggressive act:

there were a lot of beliefs about which hand you used back then; namely that using the left hand was shameful.

So if someone strikes you, and you turn your other cheek, it means that now they have to backhand you (and shame themselves) or use their left arm to strike you again (and shame themselves.)

Again, don't know how true that is, but thought it was interesting.

In some countries, sanitation is a problem.
You handle yourself with your left hand, and share dinner with your right.

It is extremely lacking is social grace to reach with your left.

As for turning the other cheek.....
I have made such practice.
It is both a dare...and an offering to settle your differences....now.

This can be rough.
It can also subside quickly, as some aggressors back off when you stand ground.

Be careful. If your attacker was willing to bruise your cheek and have you harmed.....he might well swing again....with no hesitation.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
WHERE ARE ALL THE HALF EVLOLVED DINOSAURS?


BY: BABU G. RANGANATHAM----

transitional fossils are quite prevelent in the fossil record.

Your author is using a rather popular, and unfortunatly effective, tool.

Counting on people being uneducated and/or willfully ignorant on the principles and evidence of Evolution.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link above shows a quick list of the plethora of transitional fossils.
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
Its You who considers that holy texts were written by man,They are the words of God, and there's no denying that. Some arrogant self conceited men dared to change the few to suit to their own desires, like the bible and the torah, but Quran is ever the same. Ask any Scientist who has examined the books.

Its so surprising that people don't question the monkey- tale epic of darwin which is just ridiculous to say the least, but they have a lot of brain storming uproars regarding holy texts as unholy, when all they have read is their school text books.

The bible actually has many flaws. For example there are two geneologies of Joseph the step-Dad of Jesus and they contradict each other. They are located in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The bible actually has many flaws. For example there are two geneologies of Joseph the step-Dad of Jesus and they contradict each other. They are located in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

One traces Jesus line through his maternal line of his mother Mary.
The other traces Jesus line through his paternal foster father Joseph.
One line shows Jesus has the 'legal' right to David's throne.
The other line shows Jesus has the 'fleshly' right.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
There is nothing easy about turning the other cheek.
In fact....it is aggressive.
Try it sometime.
Someone slams your face...drops you to the ground.
You get up and while looking your attacker in the eye....offer your other cheek.
You had better know what you are doing.
You could end up in the hospital.

By the time of Christ the Jews had distorted the Mosaic law and they carried out 'eye for eye' for personal vendettas. In Jesus Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not mean stagger to your feet and offer the other cheek as a target.
Jesus was not addressing self defense here but provocation.

Back then a slap [not a punch] was intended to instigate.
The slap did not injure but insult or try to provoke a reaction.
Possibly hoping for a confrontation.
One could try to goad another with a stinging slap or as today one might goad another with stinging words/ sarcasm.
Jesus was showing there is no need to retaliate in the same bad manner.
See Romans 12v17.

In secular history too a slap was a challenge to a duel not a knock-down fight.
King Solomon wrote at Proverbs 24v29 not to repay in kind.
So as a follower of Jesus one would turn the other cheek in the sense of not allowing another to force him or goad him into some sort of showdown..
-Gal 5v26
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
By the time of Christ the Jews had distorted the Mosaic law and they carried out 'eye for eye' for personal vendettas. In Jesus Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not mean stagger to your feet and offer the other cheek as a target.
Jesus was not addressing self defense here but provocation.

Back then a slap [not a punch] was intended to instigate.
The slap did not injure but insult or try to provoke a reaction.
Possibly hoping for a confrontation.
One could try to goad another with a stinging slap or as today one might goad another with stinging words/ sarcasm.
Jesus was showing there is no need to retaliate in the same bad manner.
See Romans 12v17.

In secular history too a slap was a challenge to a duel not a knock-down fight.
King Solomon wrote at Proverbs 24v29 not to repay in kind.
So as a follower of Jesus one would turn the other cheek in the sense of not allowing another to force him or goad him into some sort of showdown..
-Gal 5v26

Like I said....try applying it.

I grew up in the projects of a midsize city.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Be careful. If your attacker was willing to bruise your cheek and have you harmed.....he might well swing again....with no hesitation.

Jesus was Not addressing self defense.
A 'slap' was not a violent attack.
Jesus does not want us to, so to speak, strike offensively.
We should not allow ourselves to become provoked over a slap
Or take revenge. Vengeance is God's he will repay.
-Romans 12vs17-19

If we are harmed shouldn't we call for help or go to the police?
The apostles appealed to the court or legal system for help.
Acts 16vs19-24, 35-40; Phil 1v7.
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
One traces Jesus line through his maternal line of his mother Mary.
The other traces Jesus line through his paternal foster father Joseph.
One line shows Jesus has the 'legal' right to David's throne.
The other line shows Jesus has the 'fleshly' right.

This is Matthew Chapter 1.

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


This is declared to be the geneology of Joseph. Here is Luke 3.

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.


This is also declared to be the geneology of Joseph. Here are some possible explanations for this. At least one of these geneologies are bogus and not a geneology of anybody or at least one of the geneologies are actually about someone else. Either way, there is a mistake in the bible.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Like I said....try applying it.
I grew up in the projects of a midsize city.

Yes I too grew up in a city but not the projects, but nevertheless I had to go to school system for help because of taunts to lets see about turning the other cheek. I was slapped more than once both by minors and an adult.
Does being spit upon by an adult count as a 'slap'?
Then, I also had to reach out for help against that happening again.

Standing firm under such conditions for what the Bible really teaches brings a calm and peace over one for taking such a stand.

May your efforts to apply Jesus teachings be blessed.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Dan4reason-

Where is the mistake that you mention?

Mary's father was Heli.
So it was not uncommon in records for the Son-in-Law to also be considered as son.
 
Top