Loss of Innocence

Dear SS( Sincere Seeker):

Most of us dreamed about flying like angels or Peter Pan when we were young, right?

That is why I said if evolution work, we humans should have grown wings by now because most of us all have dreamed about flying since our childhood. Besides, throughout human history, It is a common wish, Isn't it? So our mind and "natural selection" should have worked to push our bodies to grow wings, right? At least, we should have evolved a half wing by now, if evolution theory is correct. A half wing is also okay according to Richard Dawkins, right?

Well, yes, as we grow up, we have lost our innocent childhood which we have no way to return to. That reminds me about what humankind has lost in the Garden of Eden, the paradise. By rebelling against our Creator God's only rule 100%, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge that robbed them of their guiltless innocence which had been lost forever since then. ( I think that is also the symbolic meaning of eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Not that knowledge is not good but we don't need to really rob a bank in order to get the knowledge of robbing banks. In a word, we don't need first hand knowledge of doing bad things, i.e. bombing other people.) What if our original pair of ancestors ate the fruit of tree of life instead? Have you ever thought about that?

You kept saying that God is just for Jews only. Dawkins has the same thinking. So I pasted here below a brief rebuttal to him from "Dawkins' Letters" for your reference.

Anyone who reads the Bible in its context cannot take seriously the suggestion that Jesus only came for the Jews and that love your neighbour, only meant the Jews. The very parable that Jesus told to illustrate that truth was one which involved a non-Jew. Your rewriting and rereading of these verses is out of context, dishonest and deceitful special pleading which says a whole lot more about your prejudgements than it does about the Bible. You base much of your thinking here on what you call a ‘remarkable paper’ by John Hartung, an associate professor of anaesthesiology and anthropologist. This paper entitled 'Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality,' includes an acknowledgement of you and your wife and more disturbingly a sympathetic review of Kevin MacDonald's A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. It is all getting disturbingly close to the ‘evolutionary’ view of 

religion and Judaism that the Nazi academics and 

scientists taught. And it is a million miles away from 

what the Bible actually says.

The Dawkins Letters - 9. The Good Book and the Moral Zeitgeist

(The Dawkins Letters - 6. Why there almost certainly is a God)

(*You may read all the chapters of Dawkins Letters in the website of above links)

Dear SS, What Jesus talked about Heaven is really not a wishful thinking because He came from Heaven and returned to Heaven; He has risen from death and lives forever so His promise of eternal life is a sure thing. Furthermore, He has given the Holy Spirit (as a guarantee for eternal life) to dwell in those who believe in Him too.

Dear SS, are you sure you don't want eternal life if it is a true promise?

May God wake you up!

BH

A Cold-case Detective is Speaking

...The Gospels Make A Case For God’s Existence

I first became interested in the existence of God after reading the gospels. I read them as a curious atheist. A local pastor aroused my curiosity by providing a few choice samples of Jesus’ teaching, and I was simply curious to see if the gospels contained any additional wisdom. I was no more committed to Jesus as an ancient teacher than I might be to Buddha, Socrates or any other ancient sage.

But the gospels resonated with my experience as a detective and demonstrated many characteristics of eyewitness testimony. I was quickly engaged in a forensic statement analysis of the gospel of Mark and it wasn’t long before I was taking what the gospels said seriously. I discovered:

1. The gospels were written very early
2. The gospels were transmitted carefully
3. The gospel information was protected and preserved
4. The gospel claims about Jesus were consistent with non-Christian sources
5. The gospel accounts were testable 

If the Gospels Are True, God Exists

In the end, I came to the conclusion that the gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts that delivered accurate information about Jesus, including His crucifixion and Resurrection. But that created a problem for me. If Jesus really was who He said He was, then Jesus was God Himself. If Jesus truly did what the gospel eyewitnesses recorded, then Jesus is still God Himself. As someone who used to reject anything supernatural, I had to make a decision about mynaturalistic presuppositions.

The evidence for the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts caused me to reexamine the evidence for God’s existence in general. If Jesus rose from the dead, miracles are possible. If Jesus, claiming to be God, could raise himself from the grave, there was little rational reason to disbelieve any miracle attributed to God, including the miracle of creation. The gospel accounts became the foundation from which I examined the cosmological, axiological, teleological, ontological, transcendental and anthropic arguments for God’s existence. I didn’t begin generally and then move to Jesus specifically, I began with Jesus and then moved “backward” to the broader evidence for God’s existence. As someone who worked regularly with cumulative circumstantial cases (as a cold-case detective), the connectivity of all the available evidence seemed obvious as I assembled the case. Any one of these pieces of evidence was sufficient to make the case for God’s existence, but when considered cumulatively, the weight of the evidence was overwhelming.

Jesus Is A Critical Piece of Evidence

Even though the life of Christ was a critical part of my personal investigation, I still find myself arguing for God’s existence, at least initially, as though I wasn’t a Christian at all! When sharing what I believe with skeptical friends and family members, I have to make a conscious effort to remember that Jesus’ life alone demonstrates the existence of God. If the gospels are true, none of us need any additional proof. Jesus is sufficient evidence that God exists.

(For the whole article, please click the link below)

     Jesus Is Evidence That God Exists | Cold Case Christianity

http://coldcasechristianity.com/ 

Rational people won't buy that!

Dear SS:

Just as you said in previous email, 

"Rational people won't buy that!",
 (you mean you are not able to be against your own rationality to do something irrationally.)

even more so, God wouldn't and couldn't compromise His holiness and righteousness to count sins as no sin, to just forgive our sins. God is Love so He couldn't stop loving us( this is from our human perspectives), that is why Jesus has to die for us in order to save us from eternal dooms and condemnations. Jesus indeed has died in place of us.

As for Hitler, I think you have admitted before that we humans all have our dark sides, though you don't want to call them sins.

what if we had Hitler's absolute powers and charisma, his multitudes of followers...etc., who knows if we could have been tempted and corrupted to do the very selfish acts like him, when all our dark sides are allowed to play out without any restraints. That is when our inner hell is all out!!

What do you think? Don't we all have a little Hitler, a little mean person hidden in us? If so, then, we don't need to complain that God gives the notorious sinners chance to repent and be forgiven. Agree? It is actually you and I and all the humankind who had nailed Jesus on the cross. It was all human sins piled on Him. We do have our shares of guilt even the crucifixion happened about 2000 yrs ago. Realizing this point will help us understand why Jesus had died for us.

I hope you wake up to this truth!

May God open your eyes and mind!

Why can't God just forgive our sins?

Dear SS( Sincere Seeker):

You said in #2 below, Some sins are so severe that even God should not forgive. The sinner has to pay the price. Think about this, if Hitler repented, should he be cleansed for his sins?

Basically, I think most people would agree with your above statement too.( me too, deep down inside me I like to echo with you the same disgust if someone like Hitler repent and get forgiven because we all have a built in sense of justice and fairness, right? After all, we are all made in the image of God. And our Creator God Himself is Righteousness and Justice) 

However, after we justify this kind of thinking and agreement, then come back to your favorite Q" Why can't God just drink a cup of coffee and forgive our sins? ( Why Jesus has to die for us?) Isn't that clear now why God can't "just " forgive sins?Can the Justice Himself judge unjustly? God being totally righteous and just, has to condemn the sinners to death penalty.(  that is the fact of life, we are all facing it as we age.) Yet, God Himself is Love, He loves us sinners, He doesn't want us to perish forever so He Himself( Jesus, God the Son) shouldered and bore all our sins on the Cross, so whosoever accepts His offer of salvation will be saved to have eternal life living in front of this eternal God. (You see that no one “just” forgives, if the evil is serious. Forgiveness means bearing the cost instead of making the wrongdoers pay the sin debts or penalties.)

Now imagine you would just drink a cup of coffee and forgive Hitler even if he doesn't repent or not really repent at all. You think that is fair? Are you contradictory to yourself? You ask God to "just " drink a cup of coffee and forgive all the sins, Can the Cosmic "Just" Being just do that to become the most corrupted Judge?( since He has the ultimate right to write and set up the laws, the rules.) You want God to be the worst judge and worst cosmic dictator?( worse than Hitler?)

In a word, you want  the Judge of all the earth not do justice?'

I hope this shed new light on you. Now read your #1 sharing  of your thoughts again.

1. You said "Jesus died for you" was really a silly idea fabricated by his followers.(It is absolutely not a silly idea, it is not fabricated by His followers.You are surely being misled and have deep bias about truthfulness of this statement.)  You said "God created you. God defined the sins. God can forgive you if you repent honestly and sincerely, and do not repeat. He doesn't have to hurt himself a hair at all to forgive you." (Please rethink! Although God is almighty, God is not able to do things against Himself, against His very Being and attributes.)  

 2. You said "Some sins are so severe that even God should not forgive. The sinner has to pay the price. Think about this, if Hitler repented, should he be cleansed for his sins? There is no such a nice thing that you sin and someone will bear that for you."( It is a sure thing that Jesus has died for us and borne all our sins.That is why it is called good news. This is a costly Grace in Christ because it costs God's own life.( Jesus is God/man) So Christians or others shouldn't abuse this costly Grace. Can Christians stay sinning all the times and treating this costly Grace as cheap grace? Not at all! I would tremble greatly before God if I purposely keep sinning; God will deal severely with those who abuse this costly Grace and God certainly knows who is abusing it. So we don't need to worry that the Judge can't judge justly and fairly.)

Jesus is still knocking at your door, open the door of your heart and let Him in!

May God's truth shine like the Sun!

Catch 22 Paradox of The Origin of Life

Dear SS &TM:

With your big brains, think about this catch 22 paradox of the origin of life

God bless you and yours,

BH

Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, proceeds to outline the classic Catch-22 paradox which concerns the relationship of DNA to proteins. He writes:

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the Early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started?

How does Dawkins attempt to resolve this enigma? He continues:

Now for the key point of the ‘RNA World theory’ of the origin of life. In addition to stretching out in a form suitable for passing on sequence information, RNA is also capable of self-assembling…into three-dimensional shapes which have enzymatic activity. RNA enzymes do exist. They are not as efficient as protein enzymes, but they do work. The RNA World theory suggests that RNA was good enough enzyme to hold the fort until proteins evolved to take over the enzyme role, and that RNA was also a good enough replicator to muddle along in that role until DNA evolved.

...To date, no plausible explanation has been advanced as to how  primitive self-replicating RNA molecules could have made the  transition into modern cellular systems which depend heavily on a   variety of proteins to process genetic information. Consider the  transition from a primitive replicator to a system for building the first  proteins. Even if such a system of ribozymes for building proteins  had arisen from an RNA replicator, that system of molecules would  still require information-rich templates for building specific proteins.  To date, there is no materialistic pathway by which specified infor-  mation can be readily produced. ...Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth – The Origin of Life Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes: We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity. Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point -- but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself. - See more at:  http://www.allaboutscience.org/dawkins-the-greatest-show-on-earth.htm#sthash.PUBhryaK.dpuf Read Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth Page 2 Now!

The Origin of Life

Dear SS(sincere seeker):

Could you listen to what Dawkins said about "...no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started."

Has Dawkins rigorously proved " natural selection"? "No evidence ...yet we do know?" Is that a blind faith or good reasoning? You tell me. Yet he uses "natural selection" to deny the existence of any complex being because they are not probable and not possible...etc. Do you start to see the circular reasoning here?

I am quoting Dawkins' own words. For details, see the brief article  clip below.

I hope you rethink seriously, why you embrace " Evolution" without carefully scrutinizing it? I agree the default value is not" God exists" if Evolution theory fails to stand on its own feet. Yet that other more reasonable alternative that "God creates this universe and all the creatures" should be considered again, right?

May God open your eyes!

BH

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth – The Origin of Life
Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started.Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.

Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point -- but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself...

Why didn't God change sinful men back to original state?

Dear SS( sincere seeker):

"Why didn't God simply change sinful men back to the original state since God created them in the first place ?"is a very good question you have raised.

The tough part this Q has been involved is what has been broken is the relationship with God, not just a broken arm, leg or an organ that can be fixed easily. To mend a broken relationship is easy said than done, otherwise, there won't be so many divorces in our world, right? Also, it involves both sides willing to reconcile, if only one side is willing to mend the relationship, it won't work. Say, if only the husband or the wife who wants to reconcile, the incompatibility will continue and the divorce will proceed, no turning back.

So now it is humankind who rebels against God and walks away from Him. Men have broken the trust in God and their precious relationship with their Creator God. God being absolutely holy can't embrace sinners back by drinking a cup of coffee as you said.

Sins are absolutely incompatible with God's absolute holiness, sins we shrugged our shoulders at, are horrible in God's sight, do you realize that? God's holiness can't be contaminated by our sins. There was a big chasm between our Creator God and sinful human beings. And Jesus is the only Way to God ( the only Bridge that brings us to cross the sin chasm between God and us.)

God being the righteous Judge has to condemn sinners to death penalties yet God being our loving Creator God Himself( God the Son, Jesus Christ being incarnate God/man) had substituted us to suffer the consequences of sins--death on the cross. On the cross, Jesus bore all our sins and paid our debts

( sins). Thus, whoever wants to restore the relationship with our Creator God can simply accept Jesus' sacrificial offer and be reconciled to God. God the Holy Spirit can then indwell in true believers whose sins were cleansed by Jesus' blood.

As it is a relationship so it needs both sides to agree to restore the former spiritual relationship. God has sacrificed Himself to make this reconciliation possible, yet God honors our free wills and won't force on us. He is waiting for you to turn to Him. The day you say" I do!" to God's salvation offer in Jesus is the day you can become God's adopted son.( Not "Son", nobody can be the Son except Jesus.)

I can only pray that day will come sooner!!! I hope you see how our loving God can't force this salvation on you, without your acceptance and agreement, the reconciliation won't work even though Jesus had paid dearly with His own life for the foundation of reconciliation. Dear SS, Jesus has really died for you, don't harden your heart!

You always question why Christians could be smarter than the non-believing Jews and know better about God, and I have told you it is because of God's grace and it is SQ( spiritual quotient) not IQ. in Christians' part. So they are not smarter than the non-believing Jews, than non-believer ( PhDs like you...etc.) but they are spiritually restored to God and have the relationship with a living Trinity God. That is the difference, not smartness at all. Otherwise, you should know much better than me.

When I woke up this morning, "the chasm" is ringing in my ears, so I googled the images of chasm and here are the 2 links The Problem: A Gap Caused by Sin,Sin's Chasm: Human Efforts Fall Short Indeed a picture can say better than a thousand words.

God bless you and yours,

May God open your spiritual eyes to see His truth!

How Bar-Headed Geese Scale the Himalayas

How Bar-Headed Geese Scale the Himalayas: Scientific American

How Do Bar-Headed Geese Manage To Migrate Over The Himalayas?

Please read the above links about Bar-headed Geese and their amazing feat to migrate over the Himalayas.

Few clips from these articles pasted below.

...

Body heat

How do bar-headed geese stay warm during their cold flight through the Himalayas? The ceaseless exertion required of Himalayan crossings produces prodigious amounts of body heat. Helping the bar-headed goose to retain this body heat is an inner layer of highly insulating down feathers, and an outer layer of tightly woven waterproofing feathers that prevents body ice from accumulating, weighing the bird down and plunging it to its death.

The bar-headed geese’s weapons against low-oxygen air also include their hemoglobin (a protein contained in red blood cells that binds oxygen molecules), which grabs oxygen particularly effectively at high altitudes, and thereby enables the birds to extract more oxygen from each breath of air than can other birds.Once the bar-headed goose’s blood is stoked with oxygen, it rushes through capillaries that are especially densely distributed in these birds’ muscles.

Dear SS( Sincere Seeker):

After reading the above articles, could you then tell me how the bar-headed geese developed or evolved inner layer of highly insulating down feathers, and an outer layer of tightly woven waterproofing feathers( without that, the icy accumulations would weigh the bird down and plunge it to its death.) if they were not originally equipped to start their migration over the Himalayas? And how did they develop or evolve their special kind of hemoglobin (a protein contained in red blood cells that binds oxygen molecules), which grabs oxygen particularly effectively at high altitudes? IF they don't have these kind of special hemoglobin to start with, they won't be able to survive in the high attitudes' low oxygen level. They couldn't survive evolving their hemoglobin gradually, little by little, right? Tell me how do these geese develop or evolve capillaries that are especially densely distributed in their muscles?

Don't tell me the magic word " Evolution" and it will do all these tricks.

Isn't it more sensible and logical to assume that they were designed that way from the very beginning of their species, smart you?