If there is a God why didn't he sign our DNA

by scotoma 153 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  None of your apologetic replies are mentioned or highlighted in the text.

  Not the text you quoted, no, dear mp (again, peace to you!). The text following that... yes. My reply wasn't apologetic, though. Just accurate. Unlike your assertion.

  If this text is supposed to be a scientific approach it fails because its meaning when taken literally is obvious nonsense.

  Ummmm... who said it was "supposed" to be a "scientific" approach? No one but you. YOU tried to use it AS a "scientific" approach, then to denounce that "approach." But it was never meant AS a scientific approach, although it IS a scientifica approach. It was merely meant as a means to foment a stronger flock of sheep. Which is did. Which can be... and is... done scientifically, yes. But that wasn't the intent of the Jacob's actions, as YOU wish to assert here.

  No where does it mention health and so on,

  SURE it does. Read the ENTIRE account. No, wait... here, I'll quote the REST of it for you:

  "Meanwhile, Jacob stayed and cared for the rest of Laban’s flock.

  "Then Jacob took some fresh branches from poplar, almond, and plane trees and peeled off strips of bark, making white streaks on them. Then he placed these peeled branches in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink, for that was where they mated. And when they mated in front of the white-streaked branches, they gave birth to young that were streaked, speckled, and spotted. Jacob separated those lambs from Laban’s flock. And at mating time he turned the flock to face Laban’s animalsthat were streaked or black. This is how he built his own flock instead of increasing Laban’s.

  Whenever the stronger females were ready to mate,Jacob would place the peeled branches in the watering troughs in frontof them. Then they would mate in front of the branches. But he didn’t do this with the weaker ones,so the weaker lambs belonged to Laban, and the stronger ones were Jacob’s. As a result, Jacob became very wealthy, with large flocks of sheep and goats, female and male servants, and many camels and donkeys."

  It's called BREEDING STRONGER STOCK, dear one. Again, breeders do it ALL the time.

  your being intellectually dishonest and introducing that to make an excuse for the crap that the text actually contains.

  Actually, that's what YOU were doing, dear one. I simply corrected your error. That you weren't able to receive that is on you. MY apologies, though, if trying to set the matter accurate offended you. That was not my intent.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  As for dragons, they do exist... only not as you and most of mankind believe they appear. They are not beasts... but men (celestial not terrestrial).

  Right, because that not at all what "dragon" has ever meant in any sense ever at any point in time. It is an interesting idea to redefine a word and concept to mean something entirely different what it is in one myth into another entirely different myth.
• 

  xchange

  Scotoma

  I am convinced that the only thing that can settle this is for God to actually appear.

  You mean until then we have to put up with 'enlightened' people speaking on his/it/ her /whatever behalf? Pity.

  **edited to ensure androgyny
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Ummmm... who said it was "supposed" to be a "scientific" approach? No one but you. YOU tried to use it AS a "scientific" approach, then to denounce that "approach." But it was never meant AS a scientific approach, although it IS a scientifica approach. It was merely meant as a means to foment a stronger flock of sheep. Which is did. Which can be... and is... done scientifically, yes. But that wasn't the intent of the Jacob's actions, as YOU wish to assert here.

  No one said it's a scientific approach but it is a scientific approach? FFS, what a jello approach to saying something.
• 

  tec

  EP, you should look up the etimology of the word dragon. You can see in an online definition that the archaic definition is serpent.

  Dragon is also the word used to describe Satan... who is a spirit being... who is also called a serpent.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Yep, Tec, and none of those are what the claim was. Why do you continually defend such ridiculous positions?
• 

  tec

  Just pointing out that the modern depiction of dragon is just that... a modern idea/depiction... growing out from the original meaning. Even the word 'serpent' does that.

  And your question is a form of 'have you stopped beating your wife', so I'll pass on answering it ;)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  AGuest

  Right, because that not at all what "dragon" has ever meant in any sense ever at any point in time. It is an interesting idea to redefine a word and concept to mean something entirely different what it is in one myth into another entirely different myth.

  Which is what those who define the word modernly do. It was never meant to depict a kind of beast but due to man's lack of knowledge and understanding that is what they've made it. So, okay, you accept the modern understanding. Doesn't negate the original meaning, though. A very good example of that is the "N" word: there is the modern usage/meaning... and then there is the original, from whence the modern came. Now, SOME have absolutely NO problem with the modern word (ending in "a" versus "er"); some, however, do not see or accept the difference - to them, it is the same word as originally intended. Always will be, no matter HOW some say it neither means the same thing or has the same connotation.

  Now, I could be wrong but I suspect you fully understand that analogy... even in spite of your desire to deny that... "just because". But try to control yourself (and your trembling need to deny it simply because I stated it)... because you know it's accurate. Indeed, I'm ALMOST surprised that you hadn't thought of that already, the oh-so-smart man that you (usually) are. But sometimes one can be too smart for one's own good, yes.. and so can't see the forest? Could be due to the state of the art, super high-powered night-vision "goggles" he's wearing to try and impress others. Unfortunately, while some may ooh and ahh over them... others of us know they don't work so well... in broad daylight... nor are they really necessary... because there is no forest but only a vacant parking lot... and so anyone wearing them such merely looks like an idjit.

  No one said it's a scientific approach but it is a scientific approach? FFS, what a jello approach to saying something.

  It is a scientific approach (i.e., it is a theory, the hypothesis of which can be tested and verified, yes?); however, no one (meaning God, Jacob, or the author) said it was meant to BE a scientific approach. Dear mp (peace!) t'was that asserted such... not only that it was meant to be a scientific approach... but that it wasn't and failed. He has it backward: it wasn'tmeant to be... but was... and succeeded.

  Given your two comments here, I'm thinking that perhaps you, who's usually much sharper than this, haven't yet had your usual morning "beverage," yet. Maybe you should pour yourself a... cup of coffee. Or somethin'.

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  jgnat

  It is the same part of our brain that manages belief and fact.

  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=belief-in-the-brain (article)

  The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. by Sam Harris, Jonas T Kaplan, Ashley Curiel, Susan Y Bookheimer, Marco Iacoboni, Mark S Cohen (original study, 2009. With some judicious clicking, you can find the abstract with conclusions)

  That part of our brain handles emotion, our self-representation, and cognitive conflict. I take this to mean that believers will defend with zeal, first out of complete certainty in their beliefs, but also because their identity is wrapped up in the answer. It also suggests that athiests on a rigorous pursuit of fact over fiction, will defend with equal zeal and for the same reasons.

  I, personally, have not communed with any spiritual dragons. To entertain that possibility would require a complete dismantling of my own beliefs.
• 

  AGuest

  To entertain that possibility would require a complete dismantling of my own beliefs.

  It does, dear jgnat (peace to you!) and did for me, as well. As I shared, during the one event I didn't know whether to run or stand still. EVERY inclination in my FLESH... was to run. Every fiber of my physical being said that was I was seeing meant danger and harm to me and that if I DIDN'T run... I would be killed. Eaten, sort of. Well, "bit" in two (kinda Jurassic Park style). My SPIRIT, however, would not LET me run; indeed, it kept saying, "DON'T run, stand STILL; to run would show a lack of faith!" And so... I stood still. Trembling, yes. Wanting the ground to open up and swallow me and hide me from the... "thing"... in front of me... absolutely.

  But it was the "thing's" speaking to me that eventually helped me overcome most of my fear (most, not all). "It" said... first, that "they" don't "do" that (eat humans) - that such is a contrivance of man (as we see in our movies)... and that if "it" wanted to kill me all "it" had to do was... inhale. And then it... he... said:

  "Don't worry about how I look; listen to my VOICE. You KNOW my voice and you know ME. LISTEN to me."

  And as I allowed myself to calm down and DO that... I realized that I did know the One speaking to me. I didn't know him by his APPEARANCE... which was "terrible" from my POV... but I absolutely knew his voice. Which was... and is... wonderful.

  And so I got through it. I stood there... still trembling, yes... but receiving quite a bit, some of which I have shared here.

  God doesn't look at the outward appearance, dear jgnat. But WE do. And that's unfortunate. Because we miss SO much when we walk by sight. Because our eyes "say" all kinds of things, much of which is quite distracting. Things such as "if it doesn't look like us... or like we want/NEED it to look... it's BAD." And, contrastly, that "If it DOES look like us... and/or how we NEED it to look... then it's good."

  That speech... what we "hear" with our eyes... is what's going to get most of mankind in trouble. Because what has NOT been recounted to them... by those who SHOULD have... but were too afraid of losing followers or being thought mad/insane/crazy... or couldn't accept it themselves... is what man WILL see.

  May JAH help them all be ready... as He did me. Because it IS frightful, make NO mistake. And yes, one might definitely have to dismantle their current beliefs. Shouldn't be entirely difficult for some, though - those who did so while/just after leaving the WTBTS. Same thing: what you THOUGHT you knew... you don't.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA