Atheism's Offer

Originally posted by KellyJay
People are saved getting a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I'm
not sure what your views are on that topic, much less why you brought up people
must accept the Bible. The 'Bible' has only been around for a few hundred years,
does that mean that everyone who lived and died before the Bible was compiled
were not saved? Not denying the Bib ...[text shortened]... in that
statement there are so many questions you are bringing into this discussion.
Kelly

Quote: People are saved getting a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Is being saved a proper focus for one's life? Is fear an acceptable motivation for that focus?

Is there a superior focus for one's life, and a superior motivation? What are they?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started."

The full quote! It states that life cannot exist without water does not address
how or where it started, nothing about that statement says I'm saying life
cannot exist without water only that it doesn't address the point. You were the one
bringing up water not me my only poin ...[text shortened]... you do so out of your beliefs
about the beginning nothing more, certainly not logic.
Kelly

“...."Life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started."

The full quote! ...”

yes, I know. I just cut out what I thought was the irrelevant bits.

“....It states that life cannot exist without water does not address
how or where it started, nothing about that statement says I'm saying life
cannot exist without water . ...”

fair enough 🙂 I just cannot handle your grammar. In my language, to me, saying “X cannot exist without Y....(rest of quote here)...” instead of using the “if...then” to indicate you are not stating “ X cannot exist without Y” as a fact ( i.e. instead of state it as “if X cannot exist without Y then....(rest of quote here)...” ) implies “ X cannot exist without Y” as a fact but now I will try and get used to this eccentricity in your grammar.

OK, so you never meant to say life cannot exists without water (in the semantic sense). So you don't believe life need water to exist?
But before we continue, lets start to talk about life needing water to function (as opposed to exist ) since I think this is what we really mean. I mean, there are lifeforms on Earth that can stay dehydrated in a dormant state for some time -but they cannot start to function (i.e. grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli etc) until if and when they are exposed to water (not to mention that they cannot come into existence in the first place without water! ).
No known life on Earth can function without water and there are some very good known reasons for that!

http://www.moleclues.org/forums/open-forum/why-does-life-need-water
“...Water is a unique solvent. In life, it provides the medium in which things happen - the optimal place for the chemical reactions of life to take place. Water is the perfect environment that keeps everything swimming happily - from the smallest molecules and all the way up to DNA and enzymes - so that they can interact with each other. In water, everything dissolves happily and rapidly.
You can think of a cell as a container of a chemical soup. In your body, you can find such specialised micro-environments where chemical reactions take place. In fact, your entire body is a tremendous array of chemical reactions. And in these reactions, water is what we call the solvent, an environment where all these chemicals can interact.
Thanks to water, animals can have blood, the solution that carries oxygen and nutrients to the body. The cells and tissues that receive those nutrients are also microscopic sacks of water.
Water molecules interact with each other and other molecules through what is called a hydrogen bond - a weak chemical interaction. The nature of that bond accounts for the behaviour of water, and its uniqueness...”

I should add that water is pretty unique in that it is the ONLY known solvent in nature that the essential building blocks of life (amino acids, RNA and DNA bases) are soluble in and which is liquid at an adequately high temperature to allow chemical reactions between proteins and their substrates etc. No other solvent that is known to exist in nature does this including liquid ammonia and liquid methane and pure hydrocarbons. Other known solvents that DO have these required properties (e.g. alcohol, glycerine, methyl glycol, ) either are never produced in nature or only produced in too a low concentrations or are always produced in solution in water within the required temperature range (and usually can only be created in water).

So, what is your counterargument to the above? I mean, given the above, how could life function without water?

Originally posted by JS357
Quote: People are saved getting a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Is being saved a proper focus for one's life? Is fear an acceptable motivation for that focus?

Is there a superior focus for one's life, and a superior motivation? What are they?

=========================================

Is being saved a proper focus for one's life? Is fear an acceptable motivation for that focus?

Is there a superior focus for one's life, and a superior motivation? What are they?===================================

A so-called "holistic" approach to a reason for one's life many have not just one aspect, but many.

In the Gospel of John there are basically nine or so cases of how Jesus approached people for "salvation". The writer John did not present only one case. Nor did he present only one kind of case. He presented something like nine or ten different cases of people in need of salvation from Jesus:

1.) Nicodemus was a good man who needed not a new teaching but to be reborn spiritually.

2.) After him a thirsty woman who had five husbands, was an outcast of society, and very dissatisfied.

(notice the contrast between the good Nicodemus in chapter 3 and the five times married woman in chapter 4)

3.) Then you have an interesting case of a man in a relious place who is too weak to obtain a blessing for himself. He cannot get down to the healing waters before others who are stronger to do so. Very interesting.

This is the need of salvation for the weak and impotent religious person (5:1-47)

4.) Then you have a troubled and hungry crowd in a troubled world.

5.) Then you have a celebrating crowd who are nonetheless thirsty for life.

6.) Then you have a woman caught in the act of adultery about to be stoned by the self righteous religious mob.

9.) Then you have a man born blind through no fault of his own. That is one just dealt a bad hand in life for reasons hard to know.

10.) Then you have a man who is physically dead who needs to be brought back to life.

The net effect is that John presents many reasons for needing salvation through Jesus Christ. And it is a fact that many people came to Jesus with no particular concern for the "after life".

There could be many reason for coming to Jesus for salvation. Being saved from judgment of damnation is a by-product of knowing Jesus regardless of why one came to Jesus.

How one comes to Christ is secondary. But that you come to Christ, that is most important.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================

Is being saved a proper focus for one's life? Is fear an acceptable motivation for that focus?

Is there a superior focus for one's life, and a superior motivation? What are they?===================================

A so-called "holistic" approach to a reason for one's life many have not just ...[text shortened]... one comes to Christ is secondary. But that you come to Christ, that is most important.[/b]

Thanks for that thoughtful reply. It is then a call to each of us, without any promise or threat. I like that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...."Life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started."

The full quote! ...”

yes, I know. I just cut out what I thought was the irrelevant bits.

“....It states that life cannot exist without water does not address
how or where it started, nothing about that statement says I'm saying life
cannot exist without wa ...[text shortened]... ounterargument to the above? I mean, given the above, how could life function without water?

I think we are both better off if you just simply stop taking things out of context by
pulling apart a sentence so you can make say whatever you want. To make
it really easy, just stop asking me questions and I'll do the same to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think we are both better off if you just simply stop taking things out of context by
pulling apart a sentence so you can make say whatever you want. To make
it really easy, just stop asking me questions and I'll do the same to you.
Kelly

“...I think we are both better off if you just simply stop taking things out of context by
pulling apart a sentence so you can make say whatever you want. ...”

I just told you, I cannot handle your grammar. I wasn't trying to take anything “out of context” -you just left out the “if...then...” words in your quote thus making it sound as though the first part was stated as fact.

“...To make
it really easy, just stop asking me questions and I'll do the same to you. ..”

then why do you debate on these forums at all?
I have stated the premise for my claim that life cannot function without water -so what is your counterargument?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I think we are both better off if you just simply stop taking things out of context by
pulling apart a sentence so you can make say whatever you want. ...”

I just told you, I cannot handle your grammar. I wasn't trying to take anything “out of context” -you just left out the “if...then...” words in your quote thus making it sound as though t ...[text shortened]... premise for my claim that life cannot function without water -so what is your counterargument?

You may not have been trying to take things out of context but you did and in
doing so left off the meaning or full point that sentence had in it. I told you over
and over you do not know what was there in the beginning that includes water,
now you want to change the subject to water is required now to function! If you
have someone wanting to debate that point debate that with them, I'm not
interested.

With respect to why I debate here, it is not banter with people who take things out
of context attempting to make me sound as if I were saying something I was not
so they can debate a point I don't care about.
Kelly

Water is not required for life. It is God that gives life.
He is the way, the truth, and the life.

With love,
RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
Water is not required for life. It is God that gives life.
He is the way, the truth, and the life.

With love,
RJHinds

Water is not required for life....
I bet you won't be so quick to prove that assertion by abstaining from water for a week!

God created water. He is the source of all life.
He created humans and all living creatures.
He provided us with the things we need to sustain
our bodies and keep us alive. No, I would not
tempt God by not eating food and drinking water.
That, was not the question. The question was,
Is water required for life. My answer is God is Life.
He requires no water to exist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You may not have been trying to take things out of context but you did and in
doing so left off the meaning or full point that sentence had in it. I told you over
and over you do not know what was there in the beginning that includes water,
now you want to change the subject to water is required now to function! If you
have someone wanting to debate tha ...[text shortened]... as if I were saying something I was not
so they can debate a point I don't care about.
Kelly

“....now you want to change the subject to water is required now to function! ...”

I find it hard to handle your grammar again but is “ ...required now to function” above supposed to mean “...required for life to function”? I don't want to have to 'guess' what you mean again. If yes, then how is that changing the subject in non-pandandic terms? If water is essential for life to function then how can it NOT be true that life cannot exist without water? (excluding any non-functional dormant states of course! -lets not be pedantic about this )

“...If you
have someone wanting to debate that point debate that with them ...”

OK, I just swap the word “function” for “exist” in my question; this would only make an extremely trivial change in its meaning:

I have stated the premise for my claim that life cannot exist without water -so what is your counterargument?

God does not require water to function or exist.
As I said before, God is the source of all life.
With Love,
RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
God does not require water to function or exist.
As I said before, God is the source of all life.
With Love,
RJHinds

Oh well, that answers everything doesn't it.
Our work here is done.
Goodbye everyone, you can all head to bed safe in the knowledge that the meaning of life is settled ... god is its source.

Glad I could be of service.
Yours Truely,
RJHinds

Originally posted by RJHinds
God created water. He is the source of all life.
He created humans and all living creatures.
He provided us with the things we need to sustain
our bodies and keep us alive. No, I would not
tempt God by not eating food and drinking water.
That, was not the question. The question was,
Is water required for life. My answer is God is Life.
He requires no water to exist.

I am sure you are well aware that you have deliberately misinterpreted the meaning of 'life' in this instance. So what is your purpose in doing so? The chance to squeeze in a little preaching? The chance to look foolish? I don't get it.