What?????
In what way did I question the quintessential essence of the person? By
calling the Catholic church a cult? I call it as I see it. That of course is
an opinion just like any other opinion. I even took great care in wording to
convey the truth and I provided the reason to elaborate on why I throught it
was. I don't know how I could have said it less. Is that the essence you are
referring to?
OK, we can stop.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Let me now come to my senses. When the essential beliefs of a person are
questioned, you question the quintessential essence of the person themselves.
I dare not do that.
I will not change my beliefs and neither will you.
Let be stop before I irrevocable offend you in my zeal to win the argument.
Peace and love my friend: axil
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That is in error, my friend. The Old Testament was completed several
hundreds years before Christ. In fact, the entire Old Testament was translated
to Greek about 323 BC. That version of the Old Testatment is known as the
Septuagint.
The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named Erasmus.
He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it specifically ignoring
gnostic works and pseudogospels.
It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the Coucil
of Nicaea. He did not. He merely sanctioned and promoted its widespread
acceptance.
Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian. The Roman
Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult. It is so far out in its
teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore. To them,
traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only
doctrines of the church. If there is a conflict between papal pronouncements
vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are infallible. That to me is
a mark of a cult. Heck, not even Peter the Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed
infallibility. Peter was dinged by Paul when he was in error.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the
First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the
bible was purified.
Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written?
The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more
(Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly.
There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of
Christian belief.
How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He
died before the fact.
axil
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the
Old Testament, only controlled and condoned.
Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant, the real Old Covenant
with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it has become by the time
he entered the scene.
One famous scholar once said. "The Old Testament is in the New
Testament revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed."
There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The New is
the completion of the Old. But we must make a distinction between what is
really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan
Babylon.
Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's
teachings. Far from it. Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old
Testament and said it was true. You will not find Christ or any of the New
Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament. They took it as
literal truth.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major
thrust of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults
promulgated in the Old Testament.
From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he
strove to rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to
correct those flaws.
The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.
In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its
entirety violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced
the old covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.
Cheers: axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Fair enough.
Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not
require it. There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men. However, many of
the retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus
Christ. That is the mark of a real teacher.
The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of
property other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.
I think you are confusing this with how islam treats women.
You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in
special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham. And as Christians, we call
these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it. Unlike some people who justify
it.
Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth. In my decades
of studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of
things I still do not understand. These are the things that I take by faith
for now. Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement
that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science.
The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true
scientific facts like the Earth is round. One only needs to study it with
objectivity to see it.
The Bible is not the work of mere men. The Bible is written by men
as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how the Bible could proclaim
that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such
facts. The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over
a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was
round.
The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global
Internet. In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global
surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion. Time will
tell that the Bible is correct again and again.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible
is the error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
factually true and must be believed as written.
You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.
This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the
bible in its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman
as property.
Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to
all human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.
Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such
error exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to
assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to
like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me.
Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up "evolution" to
preserve and protect life. It's called microevolution. God has put on the
genone all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and
adapt to stressess. The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already
encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new
environment. And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect
life.
My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
microevolution. My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution
theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a
species can "evolve" into another species. It's this whole nonsense of "Tree
of life" that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a
problem with.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who
can say what God’s plan of creation is?
Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I
would setup evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and
protect life from the whims of the universe.
Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer
<l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote:
My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers
of hours each day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the
DNA sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species
'evolved' from one through to the next in a way that is normally described in
short hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'. I am nevertheless always more than happy
to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during
that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are
many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds. It is
possible that Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as
Newtonian Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory
and relativity. Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
Ditto Darwinian evolution.
Nigel
On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Axil, I think you mentioned this before.
The question is, is this trait really a trait from the
dinosaur? Or is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.
For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits
there are. It is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.
We don't know that. It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.
People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because
they first assume that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. But that is just a
theory springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.
We can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of
Darwinian Evolution. That is circular reasoning.
The most probable thing is that these traits in these so
called "Junk DNA" are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.
During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken
changes. The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.
Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution. Big difference and people always
confuse the issue. They think that just because we see changes, that that
automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring. Yes, evolution is
occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.
Jojo
