I never could understand how a moral decision could cause a physical change to genetic material either
Don't worry, our friend UNBAPTISED is going to explain it to us!
WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY? What is wrong with this doctrine?
by Terry 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Terry
-
unbaptized
I'm not going to explain anything further! You have your opinion and I respect it! I don't have to live with it!
But speaking on moral decisions, If a murderer or a rapist decide to hurt someone they should not be held accountable. Since moral decisions aren't that important. Also thieves and drug dealers should not be held accountable for their immoral decisions, since they did not make people smoke drugs or secure their possessions. As a matter of fact, morals won't affect my physical body because I can do drugs, drink, smoke, have unprotected sex and nothings going to hurt me, because Terry says that moral decisions does not affect ones life.
-
kid-A
"The fact of the matter is sin was transmissable to Adams offspring through genetics."
Thats a remarkable statement! Please provide a citation from a journal where these studies were published! I am guessing you must have a Doctorate in molecular biology so I just had some quick questions pertaining to your statement:
1) Which "intron" or "exon" coding segment actually contains the "sin" gene?
2) What is the protein that this gene encodes, and how does this "sin" protein manifest itself in the "sinners" phenotype" ?
3) How many "base" pairs on the cording segment separate "a little white lie" from "gross fornication"???
-
Scully
Just as hiv, aids and other diseases, infections and disabilities can be spread from parent to offspring
There are no genetics involved in the transmission of HIV or AIDS from mother to foetus. The fact that treating the mother's HIV pre-conception and during pregnancy can result in HIV-free infants is testimony to that.
Your cake pan analogy doesn't work with genetics either, because each human's DNA is made up of 50% maternal and 50% paternal DNA. If cake pan A has a dent in the middle (brown eyes and blonde hair) and cake pan B has a dent in the corner (blue eyes and brown hair), you would have to determine the probability of each of those features in offspring:
Assuming that your pan dents represent homozygous gene pairings (only dominant or recessive genes in each of the parents) you get this:
Eye Colour: Parent A (Brown) BB + Parent B (Blue) bb = all (100%) offspring Brown heterozygous (Bb)
Hair Colour: Parent A (Blonde) AA + Parent B (Brunette) aa = all (100%) offspring brunette heterozygous (Aa)
Where it becomes interesting is in future generations:
Eye Colour: Offspring A (Bb) + Offspring B (Bb) = Third Generation Offspring --> BB (25%), Bb (50%), bb (25%)
Hair Colour: Offspring A (Aa) + Offspring B (Aa) = Third Generation Offspring --> AA (25%), Aa (50%), aa (25%)
Note that by way of genetics, result can include various combinations: Brown Eyed Blondes, Blue Eyed Brunettes, Brown Eyed Brunettes and Blue Eyed Blondes. And maybe even some Green Eyed Redheads.
Where the cake pan analogy falls apart in comparing it to genetics is that the combination of two people with exactly the same genetic flaw can result in perfectly normal offspring. At least 25% of the time. According to the cake pan analogy, ALL cakes coming from the flawed pan MUST have the same flaws. In fact, genetics doesn't explain how two people without a history of a condition like Down's Syndrome can produce a child who does have Down's Syndrome, because Down's is a random genetic anomaly in many cases.
-
trevor
Two naked people in a garden eating forbidden fruit. A devil and a talking snake. Then we add a villainous god.
Who really invented this rubbish?
Such a warped view of how humanity came to be is bound to engender guilt and lack of self esteem. Any mature adult who continues to believe in this fairy tale has only themself to blame.
There are those who rely on such damaged and gullible people to make a living.
-
Terry
But speaking on moral decisions, If a murderer or a rapist decide to hurt someone they should not be held accountable.
Huh? Who says this? Not me.
You are deflecting.
Answer my question.
-
Terry
Two naked people in a garden eating forbidden fruit. A devil and a talking snake. Then we add a villainous god.
Who really invented this rubbish?
Such a warped view of how humanity came to be is bound to engender guilt and lack of self esteem. Any mature adult who continues to believe in this fairy tale has only themself to blame.
There are those who rely on such damaged and gullible people to make a living.
And we teach generation after generation of vulnerable, impressionable, intellectually blank youngsters this pap BEFORE they've developed the cognitive mechanism to question it and apply skeptical analysis to it!
It is a crime to destroy the minds of young people with this. As they grow older they may reject even the best advice because they see the absolute nonsense of the other "information" they've been giving without separating the crap from the fact.
PEOPLE, WE ALL HAVE TO QUESTION BASIC FOUNDATIONAL ARGUMENTS and not merely go on repeating them and using them to solve moral problems.
-
Scully
But speaking on moral decisions, If a murderer or a rapist decide to hurt someone they should not be held accountable.
Accountability is certainly necessary. However, the punishment should fit the crime, don't you think? If you told your kid, don't eat the bananas, I'm saving them to make banana cream pie, and he goes and eats one banana because he's hungry and because you've just made it more tantalizing to have a banana by telling him he can't have one, and because you didn't give him an apple instead, is it really justice to kill or torture your kid for the rest of his life over it? If it sounds messed up when you put it in that perspective, that's because it IS messed up.
-
kid-A
I give props to "unbaptized" for at least making an effort......
There are tons of "believers" on this board and only 1 newbie steps up to the plate to address this issue? <<<< crickets still chirping >>>>>
-
Vinny
Terry says:..."Two naked people in a garden eating forbidden fruit. A devil and a talking snake. Then we add a villainous god. Who really invented this rubbish?
Well, I'll tell you who came up with this "rubbish".
2 Cor 11:3 says, "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ."
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned".
The BIBLE, in my opinion, IS a reliable source of information. It claims to be authored by God. There is an abundance of evidence that it could be authored by God. Here is a very short list of reasons why I believe the bible is very likely from God and thus a reliable, trustworthy source of information today:
For me, the idea that all four of gospel writers just made up these accounts about Jesus Christ is not something I quickly buy into. The way they claim to have changed their lives, leaving many significant occupations and other personal things behind, leads me to believe these men certainly found SOMETHING powerfully persuasive in this person called Christ. They freely admit their MISTAKES which only adds to their credibility, in my mind. Likewise the bible writer Paul; he certainly had something dramatic happen to him. He claims to have had a vision of Christ himself, became blind, went to Ananias as instructed and received his sight back. Then completely changed his direction from a hater and persecutor of Christians to becoming an ardent CHRISTIAN HIMSELF, one of the foremost of the apostles actually, spearheading the preaching of Christ to the Gentiles. The apostles did not even trust or believe him initially, which again, only ADDS to the believability from my perspective. I guess all of these writers COULD HAVE just made these things up. That is possible. But it is also very possible they happened just as were written. And if so, then we have some very interesting events taking place that would support Jesus' claim to be God's son, representing God himself. And if true, then what He says about God, about the earth, the future, life etc.... can be and should be seriously very considered. I would consider such a source as very reliable. Very trustworthy, *IF* these accounts about him are true.
The fact that our own calendar syatem is based on the very year Jesus was born adds to my own reasons to believe he really existed. Secular historian Josephus testifies to Jesus existence and performing miraculous events as well. Just a coincidence? A person that really did not exist at all, or whose accomplishments were greatly exaggerated? Possible, I guess. But possibly NOT exaggerated at all.
Is it possible then that this bible is from God? I believe it is possible, and even very probable. If so, if it is from God himself, then the very question as to how life arrived is answered. Then the Genesis account is believable. Like it or not.
It also tells the reader that God himself made these things that we see today. No soup-like conditions that somehow evolved into the beautiful yet complex systems we see surrounding us today. It answers many of man's perplexing questions. Does it answer everything? No, it does not. Yet it does say there are new scrolls to be opened. It talks about everlasting life being possible for those that believe and apply God's sons teachings in his life. A life where death and pain and mourning are things of the past. Not the kind of life we see today. It promises these things we see causing pain and death and heartaches will be done away completely and permanently. That is a beautiful hope, in my opinion. Many other answers, too many to list here are given as well. If the bible is true then, the human race has much to look forward to.
For me, it does make sense. It does offer hope. It is worth putting my trust in. It does offer answers as well as a good measure of comfort. It is believable. Trusting in the bible as the written word of God is based on more than mere emotion or blind faith. There are logical, reasonable reasons to believe in it as well.
Am I 100 percent, absolutely certain that the bible is from God? No, I am not. But I am *quite* certain that it is, at this point and time. There is a very real believability to this collection of books for me, for reasons expressed above. I am 1000 percent certain that there is A GOD. Is He the God of the bible? In my view, He probably is.
I have rejected and subsequently left the WT Society itself. But I am still a "Believer" in Christ and of the very writings that have presented this person that quite possibly is the Son of God Himself.
That source of "rubbish", as you call it, is not quite taking in ALL of the facts here.
Sorry.
All the best,
vinny