Translate

Monday 22 October 2012

Evolution, Atheists and all things considered

The New Atheist purports that God is a 'Delusion' as Carl Marx would say
'the Opiate of the Masses'. At the heart of the matter in scholarly debate.
Evolution, they say, explains Creation in all it's Complexity. God does not
exist. I would like to weight in with my own observations. I will explain why
i don't believe that Evolution explains the existence of Life in the Universe.

There are three personal observations i would like to make with the help
of science and discovery. I'm open to suggestions, on what, you the reader
think. Do i make sense or am i as Richard Dawkin's purports  under a
'God Delusion'.

Firstly, let me, clarify my position. There is a difference between the applied
sciences versus theoretical sciences. We can observe genetic variation  and
evolutionary changes in biological systems. It can be empirically tested and
verified through years of research. How a cell evolved from it's fundamental
parts or cells evolving to higher forms, to me, falls under the theoretical sciences.
Scientists making inferences through observations not supported by empiricism.
Scientists observing the fossil record with the use of techniques like carbon
dating, observing nature's mechanisms, and the physical universe are making
inferences with no empirical proof. My observations:

i) Mechanics and  Propulsion in the Bacteria Flagella.

I came across a phenomena that i hit me on the head. The rotating filament
particularly how the rotor and stator appears designed and operates flawlessly.
However, even more amazing. If someone can explain to me how the filament
operates as a working directional arm. I'm surprised that Physicists have not noticed
that it is almost like a robotic arm coupled directly to the rotor. Now why is
this amazing? Simply, electrical theory does not make this possible. Electrical
Engineers are well aware of Electrical Noise i.e. Harmonics (3,5,7,..odd frequencies).
Why does it work? It's not supposed too.  This is a biological, mechanical and
electrical system.


ii) The Evolution of Venom

Lets talk about Snake venom which can be categorized as hemotoxicity and
neurotoxicity. Hemotoxic venom kills tissue and causes inflammation.Neurotoxic venom
effect the nervous system leading to death. Venom is essentially Snake Saliva. How did
venomous snakes evolve to the toxicity overkill levels (See Clip). How did the first
venomous snakes evolve itself, before being made extinct by predators, and/or
mutations of the saliva appear suddenly as to provide the snake a survival mechanism.
I put it to you. It is more likely that a massive numbers of snake species appeared
all of the sudden and mutation in species that evolved specialist's in venom. There is no
way a single cell evolved into many snakes. More likely, many snakes became the fewer
specialized snakes.


iii) The Universe

The 'Finely Tuned' argument. Apologist's like Dinesh D'Souza quoting Stephen Hawking's
book 'A Brief History Of Time'

'If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by
even one  part in a hundred thousand million-million, the universe would have 
re-collapsed before  it ever reached its present size.'

To be fair. This is however explained later, which i, refer to, as the rubber band explanation

 'The rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close 
to the critical rate determined the energy density of the universe. This could 
then explain why the rate of expansion is so very close to the critical rate, 
without having to assume that  the initial rate of expansion was very carefully 
chosen.'

What is Stephen Hawking really saying? I had to think about it. The Universe will only
expand, as much as, it will expand. That is why i used the 'rubber band' analogy. Again,
the deeper  question is why the does the 'rubber band' operate in the 'finely tuned'
decimal accuracy in the 'hundred thousand million-million'

The god called Evolution is in itself 'Delusional'.






Thursday 18 October 2012

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea




In previous conversations on a different Blog by Parameswara2. The central theme
of his Christian objection was the notion that the Council of Nicaea (325AD) formalized
the concept of the Trinity. This is not True. What was debated was the deity of Yeshua.
What did Christians believe prior to the Council of Nicaea ? I want to address the myths
and insinuations that seem to be the favourite pass-time of  Objectors of the Christian

faith. There is only one question that needs to be answered. Did Christians prior to the
Council of Nicaea believe Yeshua was God? The Tanakh essentially confirms 'Yahweh' 
and his spirit the 'Ruach Hakodesh'

In a previous post i had mentioned the historicity of Agustus Caesar on his favourite
pass-time, murdering Christians




'The Roman Empire dominated the Western world for the next four hundred 

 years and the Christians were persecuted for three hundred of these years. 

Their torture included being thrown into the arena, during gladiator fights, 

to be eaten by lions. But their faith never wavered and finally won over the

Roman Emperor Constantine.'



 ~ http://www.famouslives.com/juliuscaesar.html


I wish to briefly give an account of 3 martyrs of many who gave their lives to Yeshua prior

to the Council of Nicaea, inorder to address rumour mongers and investigate the evidence at
 hand.


Pope Clement I (Saint Clement of Rome ~96)   The Bishop of Rome. He was the first
Apostolic Father of the Church. He was tied to an anchor and thrown from a boat into the
Black Sea.  I quote his prayer in his epistle to the Corinthians

 
"Finally may the all-seeing God and Master of Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who 
chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto 
every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance,chastity, and soberness, that they may be well-pleasing 
unto His Name through our High Priest and Guardian. Jesus Christ, through whom 
unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever and ever, 
Amen. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and 
Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that 
they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and
 earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good 
order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places 
who have been called by God and through Him, through whom is glory and honour, 
power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for 
ever and ever. Amen" (64-5.)

~ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Clearly, he refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, through him, unto him, by God, forever
and ever. 

Ignatius of Antioch  (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117) was the third Bishop of Antioch,
and was a student of John the Apostle,he was fed to the Lions, in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans
 
" I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have 
observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established
 in  love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, 
that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, Romans 1:3 and the 
Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of 
a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled 
Matthew 3:15 by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilot and Herod the tetrarch, 
nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed
passion, that He might set up a standard Isaiah 5:26, Isaiah 49:22  for all ages, 
through His ressurection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among 
Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church."

~ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm 

I think his statements are quite explicit as to the Deity of Yeshua. 

Polycarp (69 – 155) was a 2nd Century Bishop of Smyrna who was burnt to the stake
for refusing to denounce his faith. I quote briefly from his epistle to a heretic
 
"For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is 
antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, 
and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and 
saith there is neither resurrection nor judgement, this man is a first born of Satan."

~http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm

Polycarp explicitly points to Yeshua's diety 'come in the flesh'' and points to the
 'testimony of the cross'

Sunday 14 October 2012

Is Judaism and Christianity Incompatible ? Part III




The last point. The Enigma of the Trinity.

v) Yahweh is three persons in one.

Here, Rabbi Asher implies that the Trinity is Pagan in nature by giving examples of
polytheistic religions that pre-date Christianity. Rabbi Asher gives clear examples as to the
copycat idea of the Triune nature of foreign gods and the virgin birth. Hence, Guilt by
Association. No proof, but insinuation. It seems to me. If i wished to engage in insinuation.
I'd quote multiple similarities from the accounts of other religions on the life of Moses and the Prophets.

Since we are not dealing with empirical proofs, let me give my own opinions. There is a purely monotheistic creature who knows Yahweh's nature all too well. Is it hard to believe; possibly
that it, subtly created massive confusion from the beginning in the Garden of Eden.

 א  וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים;

 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had
 made.  [Genesis 3]


The Holy Spirit 'Ruach Hakodesh' is said to be a dynamic force presence of Yahweh.
Christians cannot prove explicitly that Yahweh is Triune in nature. 

Rabbi Asher counters that it was Paul who came up with the idea of the Atonement of Sin and
that Yeshua was the Son of God



And immediately he began preaching about Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is indeed
 the Son of God!" ~ Acts 9:20 NLT

The Dilemma now becomes Yeshua Blaspheming throughout John's Gospel if Messiah is a
mere man.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" ~ John 8:58 NLT

One can argue that and say Yeshua is not claiming to be Yahweh but at the very least. Yeshua
claims he existed before Abraham. Yeshua continues to repeat over and over that he is more
than just a man.

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. ~ John 14:6

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.' ~ John 15:5

Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. ~ John 14:11

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. ~ John 10:11

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.~ ~ John 10:9

Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he.”~ John 9:9

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”~ John 9:5

Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. ~ John 10:7

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. ~ John 11:25


etc,etc,etc

Yeshua would have to be-branded as a Mad-man because he was crucified by the Roman's as
an instigator who claimed to be the King of the Jews. How many false messiahs does the
Rabbi know that

~ Raised the Dead
~ Walked on Water
~ Command the Weather
~ Healed multitudes of Crippled and Sick
~ Commanded Demons out of  the Possessed
~ Fed five thousand miraculously
~ Knew personal histories about others
~ Forgave Personal Sin


There are huge implications per John the Revelator's words. If Yeshua is not Messiah. Someone else is waiting around the corner to assume the role. If not, a Suffering Messiah, will it be a Apocalyptic Messiah.

18 Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[c] His number is 666 . [Revelation 13]


Some believe 666 is a Karagma (Stamp), not a number but the the name
' Bismillah' (In the name of Allah)


What if, the Islamic Apocalyptic Messiah the 'Mahdi' appears in Beth-lehem to claim fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy.  

Saturday 13 October 2012

Is Judaism and Christianity Incompatible ? Part II


Lets begin:

 ii) Messiah has to come from the line of David.

 I'll agree with him and presume that the Christians have got it all wrong.  It also says in the Tanakh. Messiah will come from Bethlehem Ephrathah per Rabbi David Kimhi .

 א  וְאַתָּה בֵּית-לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה--מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא, לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם, מִימֵי עוֹלָם.

 1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. [Micah 5]

 Beth-lehem will soon be a Palestinian only town, as percentages of Arab Christians are down to single digits. If Yeshua is not Messiah, will Jew's accept a Palestinian Messiah. I think not.

iii) Messiah cannot be God if he is a man.

 יט  לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה. 

 19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good? [Numbers 23]

Again, it is True that God cannot be a man per the Tanakh.

There is also no mention of the Trinity in the explicit sense in the Tanakh.  If I may, what does the Tanakh say about Messiah. Is he a mere man?
 
The Book of Isaiah specifically in the 53 chapter identifies the characteristics of the Messiah

 א  מִי הֶאֱמִין, לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ; וּזְרוֹעַ יְהוָה, עַל-מִי נִגְלָתָה. 

 1 'Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
[Isaiah 53]

  his suffering

י  וַיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ, הֶחֱלִי--אִם-תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ, יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים; וְחֵפֶץ יְהוָה, בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח. 

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [Isaiah 53]


He is the literal 'arm of the LORD' that was 'crush'(ed).

iv) The sacrifice for the Atonement of Sin is a requirement not an option to the Lord

Here is where i disagree with the Rabbi Asher. He quotes verses that imply that sacrifices are not required. So why then, are sacrifices strewn throughout the biblical narrative, if it is not required ?

Why does Yahweh test Abraham by making him sacrifice Isaac, after which, provides a ram
for sacrifice ?  

These are Enigmatic Passages of the Tanakh. What Rabbi Asher quotes is opposite to the biblical narrative at hand.  

The Tanakh has many Enigmatic Passages. I refer to as, only Yahweh knows.  Eg. In the Tanakh, Abraham is favoured by Yahweh.

 ח  וְאַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַבְדִּי, יַעֲקֹב אֲשֶׁר בְּחַרְתִּיךָ; זֶרַע, אַבְרָהָם אֹהֲבִי.

8 But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham
   My friend; [Isaiah 41]

Yahweh even calls him a Prophet even-though he lied twice to Pharaoh and Abimelech.

ז  וְעַתָּה, הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת-הָאִישׁ כִּי-נָבִיא הוּא, וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ, וֶחְיֵה; וְאִם-אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב--דַּע כִּי-מוֹת תָּמוּת, אַתָּה וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לָךְ. 

7 Now therefore restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.' 
 [Genesis 20]


am i then, suppose to infer that Jews practice 'Al - Takiya' (Islamic Doctrine of Lying). 



Friday 12 October 2012

Is Judaism and Christianity Incompatible? Part I



Rabbi Asher Meza of Kochav Hashachar in Israel lays the foundation on why Christianity is false.


Rabbi Asher uses logical reasoning to persuade the audience of the efficacy of his statements. My premise, if you follow-me is to analyze his logic and conclusions. Assuming all his conclusions are correct, actually causes a greater Dilemma than it solves, and i will prove that.

The Null Hypothesis is Yeshua is the Lord. Logically, in-order to prove that the Null Hypothesis is incorrect the Rabbi gives evidence to the contrary. Six Sigma is popularly used to improve the quality of a process. I favour the Define portion of DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) to analyze Rabbi Asher's conclusions. 


What are the CTQ's (Critical to Quality) that point to Yeshua as being Yahweh.

i) There is a transcendent being that created and controls the universe.
   (OK, i think we agree on this point, I hope.)
ii) Messiah has to come from the line of David.
iii) Messiah cannot be Yahweh if he is a man.
iv) The sacrifice for the Atonement of Sin is a
   requirement not an option to Yahweh.
v) Yahweh is three persons in one.
  

One that is self-evident before we begin. Four critical ones that i can glean from his and my observations. I will analyze in Part II.

Friday 5 October 2012

The Conundrum of Truth

My perception or modes-operandi as to the clarity of Truth
can very much be attributed to my observations. The problem
with Truth in the Modern World. It is very much liken to the
serpent in the Garden of Eden.

The serpent has been spinning Lies since the beginning of
humanity. When it approached Eve in the Garden of Eden it
said i paraphrase. Are you sure that you will die, if you eat fruit
from tree of the knowledge of good and evil ? Perhaps, God does
not want you to be as smart as he is, and be like God yourself.

The serpent insinuated in relative terms to impress upon Eve than
Adam whether Truth is absolute.


Atheist's practice Moral Relativism. As a pun, I would like to
say that Truth does not have any relative's.

It is the questions that stray away from Truth that are needlessly
debated to ad-nausea. Of which, two fall into the category
of red-herrings. They pull faith seekers away from the Truth.

One is designed in a polemical manner as to corner a person

Eg. Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that Jesus say,
'I am God,Worship me?'

and there are questions that only the Lord knows the answer.

Eg. If God is Holy, why does he allow Evil to get away with Evil?

I am always suspicious with someone who has all the answers. Simply
because, it implies that they transcend above their maker. Beware
of Apologists that seem to have all the answers.

The Arbrahamic faiths teach absolute truth or at least their Books say
so.

Truth either causes a person's mental paradigm trauma i.e. a crisis
of conscience before acceptance of the Truth or the Lord allows the
Heart of the person to completely harden against him.

John Lennox is a Mathematician and Philosopher, shares his Truth
in the clips bellow

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
~  Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four