The Debate Hall Social Thread

[jaswa]

I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

Jesus holds the keys to death AND HADES. Hades comes just after death. People in Hades are given up - THEN judged. Hades was thrown into the lake of fire (symbollism of hell).

The Bible distinguishes Hades and Hell as separate places. Hades is a 'waiting room' if you will, between life on earth and judgement. Now this is where I believe Catholics get purgatory from - since you're dead, but not yet judged, you can work your way up. However, "each person was judged according to what he had done" is in relation to works yes, BUT not determining salvation. In Hades your place is set in stone, there is symbollism in other places of a chasm between believers and non-believers. Believers names are written in the Book of Life, but God will ask you to give an account for what you've done - did you make use of your life, ie. sit around fapping all day but apologise for sin, or go out and preach/save others.

The protestant's meaning of 'faith' is 'depend'. It's not some airy fairy word because we can't deduce if the Bible is trustworthy to read or not, you need to depend on Jesus to be in relationship with him in heaven. Depending on Jesus means that you don't need works to be saved, you have assurance of your salvation in Jesus. If you 'cast off the old self' (worldy ways) and 'clothe yourself in righteousness', a true reflection of your dependence on Jesus will be doing his good works. Essentially, works aren't necessary for salvation, but will come as a biproduct of a true believer.

James 2:14-26 (link is there) talks about how faith without works is dead.

No, a 'good hearted atheist' will not be accepted to heaven.

EDIT: and when Jesus says "you will be with me in paradise" to the thief on the cross next to him - that is because he will be in Hades with the assurance of heaven. Later on the Bible mentions in the 3 days Jesus was physically dead, he "ministered to the dead", ie. giving encouragement to the believer half of Hades My question was because some people believe that Jesus went to hell in 3 days, however he did not. Jesus suffered hell on the cross - God's wrath poured onto him (you know when he's asking for the cup to be taken - but still humble before the Father "but that your will be done, not mine") and separation from God.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It was reported around two weeks ago that scientists managed to isolate a complete protein sequence of BRCA2 which is known for suppressing breast cancer.

See DNA is usually double stranded. DNA can replicate during cell division and often contains sequences that regulate various portions of growth. A portion of these sequences signal mitotic division. When there is a mutation, the cell is stuck in Interphase and constantly is growing, yet never is induced for mitotic division. Therefore resulting in uninhibited proliferation of cell growth and replication of faulty DNA. The question is then, what causes cancer mutations?

Without us knowing though, various stressors causes this double stranded alpha helix conformation to sometimes break. Examples of stressors include exposure to UV light, metabolic reactions, and oxidation reactions.

Single-stranded binding protein (SSB) attaches to single strands of the broken DNA. The broken DNA consists of a double stranded portion and a single stranded (tethered) portion that resulted from the break. When DNA is broken, there is a tendency to completely reform as a double portion. Unfortunately this wouldn't result in a correct sequence and if replicated, would likely constitute a dysfunctional mutation. Therefore SSB binds to the single strands in order to prevent incorrect refolding.

BRCA2 comes by and brings along its friend RAD51 to the DNA site. BRCA2 contains DNA joining ends on the far right site of the protein. The DNA joining ends allow BRCA2 to attach to the DNA. BRCA2 also contains RAD51 binding centers in the middle of the protein. The RAD51 binding centers allow BRCA2 to bind RAD51 to the DNA. In doing so, the DNA becomes stabilized and eventually fixed. The SSB gets "kicked off" as BRCA2 and RAD51 work their magic.

BRCA2 and RAD51 perform "error-free" DNA Repair, which means that they don't make any mistakes in the reformation of the double strand. They accomplish this by using an already successful sequence. RAD51 (red circle) attempts to signal a complementary strand to the single strand that its attached from a similar DNA double strand molecule that hasn't been broken by stressors. Then RAD51 penetrates into this strand and forms a DNA double strand complex between the broken single strand (it is currently binded to) and the strand from the donor double strand molecule. Homologous recombination occurs to repair the strands, even though the paper itself didn't specify the details. Regardless, the broken strand becomes fixed and the DNA Strand Double Break is resolved by the error-checking proteins.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Jesus holds the keys to death AND HADES. Hades comes just after death. People in Hades are given up - THEN judged. Hades was thrown into the lake of fire (symbollism of hell).

The Bible distinguishes Hades and Hell as separate places. Hades is a 'waiting room' if you will, between life on earth and judgement. Now this is where I believe Catholics get purgatory from - since you're dead, but not yet judged, you can work your way up. However, "each person was judged according to what he had done" is in relation to works yes, BUT not determining salvation. In Hades your place is set in stone, there is symbollism in other places of a chasm between believers and non-believers. Believers names are written in the Book of Life, but God will ask you to give an account for what you've done - did you make use of your life, ie. sit around fapping all day but apologise for sin, or go out and preach/save others.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Greek god (don't ask).

No, a 'good hearted atheist' will not be accepted to heaven.

I've always found this a bit, Eh... Don't know the word. God is practically saying "Depend on me or you will go to a place of extreme suffering!"

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Jaswa, I don't believe that you've addressed my last post. Please do so. Here is the link: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11490871&postcount=1590

 

[jaswa]

Didn't think there was much to address. You assume if a God exists that he wouldn't define perfection. It's your subjective opinion if you think he's immoral. Do you want me to reciprocate and remind you to respond to my post here now?

 

[Reaver197]

It was reported around two weeks ago that scientists managed to isolate a complete protein sequence of BRCA2 which is known for suppressing breast cancer.

See DNA is usually double stranded. DNA can replicate during cell division and often contains sequences that regulate various portions of growth. A portion of these sequences signal mitotic division. When there is a mutation, the cell is stuck in Interphase and constantly is growing, yet never is induced for mitotic division. Therefore resulting in uninhibited proliferation of cell growth and replication of faulty DNA. The question is then, what causes cancer mutations?

Without us knowing though, various stressors causes this double stranded alpha helix conformation to sometimes break. Examples of stressors include exposure to UV light, metabolic reactions, and oxidation reactions.

Single-stranded binding protein (SSB) attaches to single strands of the broken DNA. The broken DNA consists of a double stranded portion and a single stranded (tethered) portion that resulted from the break. When DNA is broken, there is a tendency to completely reform as a double portion. Unfortunately this wouldn't result in a correct sequence and if replicated, would likely constitute a dysfunctional mutation. Therefore SSB binds to the single strands in order to prevent incorrect refolding.

BRCA2 comes by and brings along its friend RAD51 to the DNA site. BRCA2 contains DNA joining ends on the far right site of the protein. The DNA joining ends allow BRCA2 to attach to the DNA. BRCA2 also contains RAD51 binding centers in the middle of the protein. The RAD51 binding centers allow BRCA2 to bind RAD51 to the DNA. In doing so, the DNA becomes stabilized and eventually fixed. The SSB gets "kicked off" as BRCA2 and RAD51 work their magic.

BRCA2 and RAD51 perform "error-free" DNA Repair, which means that they don't make any mistakes in the reformation of the double strand. They accomplish this by using an already successful sequence. RAD51 (red circle) attempts to signal a complementary strand to the single strand that its attached from a similar DNA double strand molecule that hasn't been broken by stressors. Then RAD51 penetrates into this strand and forms a DNA double strand complex between the broken single strand (it is currently binded to) and the strand from the donor double strand molecule. Homologous recombination occurs to repair the strands, even though the paper itself didn't specify the details. Regardless, the broken strand becomes fixed and the DNA Strand Double Break is resolved by the error-checking proteins.

Good stuff, Acrostic.

I'm assuming other cancer treatments would benefit from this, not just breast cancer. However, it seems they would still need to isolate the RAD51 sequence to really complete an effective treatment to damaged DNA, unless they already have?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Right, Acrostic, I don't entirely understand what you've written. But I'm guessing the jist of it is, that a sequence that BRCA2, a protein that is involved in the repair of DNA, suppresses breast cancer?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ Reaver: The protein sequence for Human RAD51 has already been analyzed and can be found in GenBank. It's 339 amino acids long and contains the following amino acids.

1 mamqmqlean adtsveeesf gpqpisrleq cginandvkk leeagfhtve avayapkkel
61 inikgiseak adkilaeaak lvpmgfttat efhqrrseii qittgskeld kllqggietg
121 sitemfgefr tgktqichtl avtcqlpidr gggegkamyi dtegtfrper llavaerygl
181 sgsdvldnva yarafntdhq tqllyqasam mvesryalli vdsatalyrt dysgrgelsa
241 rqmhlarflr mllrladefg vavvitnqvv aqvdgaamfa adpkkpiggn iiahasttrl
301 ylrkgrgetr ickiydspcl peaeamfain adgvgdakd

@ Bob Jane T-Mart: Yeah. So the protein for Human BRCA2 is around 3,000+ amino acids and has problems with solubility. Therefore its difficult to extract the protein. Now they've done work on Mouse BRCA2 and RAT BRCA2, but this is the first time that they've managed to extract the whole spanking amino acid sequence of the Human BRCA2 protein.

Previous scientific papers have used research on Mouse BRCA2 and RAT BRCA2 proteins to formulate theories on how Human BRCA2 works with RAD51 and other components. But at best, these only remained theories. Now that Human BRCA2 protein has been obtained in its entirety, there is the possibility for extensive in vitro/in vivo testing that could lead to massive progression in terms of finding further cures and treatments for Breast Cancer.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah. So the protein for Human BRCA2 is around 3,000+ amino acids and has problems with solubility. Therefore its difficult to extract the protein. Now they've done work on Mouse BRCA2 and RAT BRCA2, but this is the first time that they've managed to extract the whole spanking amino acid sequence of the Human BRCA2 protein.

Previous scientific papers have used research on Mouse BRCA2 and RAT BRCA2 proteins to formulate theories on how Human BRCA2 works with RAD51 and other components. But at best, these only remained theories. Now that Human BRCA2 protein has been obtained in its entirety, there is the possibility for extensive in vitro/in vivo testing that could lead to massive progression in terms of finding further cures and treatments for Breast Cancer.

I see. Would that mean that this specific BRCA2 sequence treatment, could in theory apply to all forms of cancer, as opposed to just Breast Cancer? It seems to me that, DNA repair isn't unique to breast tissue.

 

[Sucumbio]

For Catholics, you need to do good deeds, so I think the idea is that a good hearted atheist would still be accepted.

Purgatory.

 

[Dre89]

What's that supposed to mean.

Purgatory is for those already accepted into Heaven, but have to spend time alleviating their sins.

 

[Reaver197]

This is like seeing people debate over the mythology for fantasy novels.

Anyway, found this interesting article that I thought some people here would appreciate reading.

http://listverse.com/2010/11/04/10-strange-things-about-the-universe/

Though, there are some inaccuracies and issues with some of the points made.

 

[KrazyGlue]

^ Yeah, that was really neat. Of course, some of the things went right over my head, but I love thinking about antimatter, black holes, etc.

One thing that confuses me with Kerr's Black Holes is the idea of a "one-dimensional ring". How can a ring be one-dimensional?

 

[Dre89]

This is like seeing people debate over the mythology for fantasy novels.

Usually the people who reduce the Bible to fantasy tales are the ones who have no grasp of how immense the theology and philisohy behind it is.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Usually the people who reduce the Bible to fantasy tales are the ones who have no grasp of how immense the theology and philisohy behind it is.

Show your so-called "theology" and "philosophy".

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj9DgeLmzac&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You'll never sleep again >_>

 

[asianaussie]

loads of stuff

I'm interested in what particular source the proteins BRCA2 and RAD51 isolate the 'correct' sequence from. If it was satellite DNA then I can see the point, but most satellite DNA wouldn't cause a mutation so dangerous as to result in tumourous division. If this was some form of semi-coding repetitive gene, I'd see the link. Even so, if the sequence wasn't precisely the same as it was before, problems would ensue. Got any information on the sourcing mechanisms for these proteins?

I doubt that a 'cure' will result for more advanced stages of such cancers (I suppose genetic-based drugs are a possibility, but I don't know if SSB will be yielding easily), but it could certainly help in the earlier stages.

 

[Lore]

Show your so-called "theology" and "philosophy".

Did you really just say this? Just do a quick google search for "catholic philosophers" (correct spelling?), and you'll find a ton of info.

I mean, I thought it was understood at this point that there is a huge amount of philosophy and theology behind Catholicism/Christianity in general. Whether it's the truth (as in, it explains exactly what happens after you die, etc) or not is up for debate, but you can't deny that there is a lot of stuff out there that is related to the Bible.

Sure, some of the related theology could have been made by some insane villager in the Middle Ages, but that's not the point.

Anyway, it was so nice of Bob Saget to make the DA thread without telling me about it when he did it. I'll work on my beginning argument asap.

 

[Dre89]

The fact he asked me to present 2000 years of scholarship shows he too has no grasp of it's size and intensity.

Secondly, it's not my responsibility to provide the evidence, I didn't make the initial claim. If someone is going to make a claim about religion, it's their responsibility to have the knowledge to back it up. Failing to do so is just poor debating.

 

[Reaver197]

Oh, I'm sure you can immense amounts of material dedicated to things that are patently fantasy and untrue. Just look at Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, astrology, palm reading, crystal energy, etc. All of those have spawned a massive amount of literature.

Just because a bunch of people said wrote stuff about it, doesn't prove its validity; a validity which you have, in my opinion, failed to demonstrate in any debate I've had with you.

So when people start debating over things like purgatory, something that I don't even think is mentioned in the already inconsistent bible, is like seeing people trying to add something to literary canon just because there was some really good fanfic of it, or because the books that inspired it had it, or just retconning it because the publisher wanted to make more money from the series.

Add in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, world wide floods, boats that hold two of every animal ever, dragons, sea monsters, unicorns (though, probably just a mistranslation of "ox", but quite a slip up for the authoritative book), angels, demons, rivers/water turning into blood, a man whose strength depended upon his hair length, a man living inside a whale, etc. It all starts to feel of some overwrought fantasy.

At least it didn't have vampires though.

 

[Dre89]

Except that none of that is to meant to be taken literally.

Just curious, if you don't need to be educated in philosophy and theology to criticise religion, do I need to be educated in science to criticise big bang theory?

 

[Reaver197]

Then maybe all the bits about Jesus, the Ten Commandments, and this deity named Yahweh is all not so supposed to be taken literally either. Same with the ideas of heaven or hell, the communion and its accompanying bizarre belief that bread turns into actual flesh, or this strange confabulation that is known as the trinity.

Of course, you can criticize the big bang theory. Anyone can criticize something. It's just that if you want to actually bring something meaningful to the discussion of something like that, it helps to know what you're talking about. Otherwise, chances are, you are completely misunderstanding something, or just repeating stuff that has already been dealt with. You'll probably lose respect for trying to interject in a field which will become obvious you know very little about.

However, unlike the big bang theory, there is no verifiable evidence to analyze to take anything like the bible more seriously than the Twilight series. The premise on which the whole underpinnings of the theology and philosophy which you allude to stand on shaky, ethereal ground. If I were to try and rectify the particulars of theology and philosophy of religion, I'd imagine I would need to know a lot more about it. But the whole thing hangs on this presumption that this old book from some superstitious desert tribe actually has any merit, and that there is anything to this idea of being a god.

It would be equivalent to me coming across two people arguing about the comparative powers of, say, Gandalf and Sauron. Of course, their whole arguments would be steeped in the lore of the world, and presumably all the notes and books written by Tolkien, but I wouldn't need to be intimately familiar with it to go "it doesn't matter guys, they're fictional characters anyway". In order to prove to me otherwise, they would need to demonstrate the merits of that body of knowledge and that it has anything to do with reality (which I really hope never actually happens...).

The big bang theory is already formulated from observations of reality, so it doesn't have that hurdle to clear, it's just becomes a matter of whether we collected enough evidence and observations to satisfactorily hold such a position, and that they don't contradict it.

 

[Dre89]

You just showed you know nothing about Christianity.

Christianity isn't just based on a book, it was the Church who put that book together. Carholicism is based on both Tradition and Scripture.

The Scripture was only assembled into the Bible because it was the most efficient means of preserving the message. The Bible isn't the only source of authority.

As for Tradition, we have historical evidence that views held by the Church now were held by the Early Church, before the Bible was collaborated.

You say there is no evidence for the content of the Bible being true. Well can I ask, what sources have you looked at? You can't make that claimig if you haven't done any research.

Look at the thread in the PG. Also, there have been something like 38 separate biblical scholars who testify that the tomb was empty three days after his death, and that he was crucified. It's not just conservative scholars either, it's pretty much universally accepted by all biblical critics.

So even if the Bible isn't the word of God, and I never said it was, that's nit what I'm arguing, you clearly have no advanced understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been one of my biggest critics, yet I don't know why I should listen to you if you throw out claims about things you know nothing about.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre you do realize that the scriptures pretty much are the bible?

 

[asianaussie]

im lazy and cbf deducing or even reading posts atm

someone tell me about dre's religious views in one sentence

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

im lazy and cbf deducing or even reading posts atm someone tell me about dre's religious views in one sentence

One day Dre looked in the mirror and realized that his attractive looks transcended that of human beings, he realized that in order to have transcendent beauty, there had to be a transcendent deity that blessed him with his manly features and swore to spread the message of his good looks to the entire world; one forum board at a time.

 

[jaswa]

Dre is a deist (not a theist), but respects Catholic doctrine. He also thinks atheism is a logically sustainable position, but most people aren't correctly justified in it.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre is a deist (not a theist), but respects Catholic doctrine. He also thinks atheism is a logically sustainable position, but most people aren't correctly justified in it.

Invalid explanation. Query required response of n=1. Auto reject explanation when n > 1 or n < 1.

 

[jaswa]

er....wut?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

er....wut?

General joke on computer programming specificity. In a basic programming language like Java, you have to be very specific with the inputs allowed in a given response. It's not like the language itself is self-aware. Hence the attempt at computation rhetoric. Even though I've forgotten a lot of the material. Programming was pretty difficult for me to grasp.

@Bob-Jane: The BRCA2 protein is limited in its function of which DNA it can treat. Along the C-terminus of the compound are active sites that recognizing certain DNA. I'm assuming that these active sites attach to the major groove of a given DNA conformation in order to recognize the site. Sites that are not recognized probably will not allow the BRCA2 to bind or vice versa. There is also a BRCA1 that may attach to DNA alpha strands that the BRCA2 protein cannot attach to due to its specificity. Therefore even though you are correct in your assumption that DNA repair systems are a common motif throughout the human body and cellular interactions, there are often different mechanisms such as chaperone proteins (HSP70) and other house-keeping sequences that are translated to form protective proteins.

@Cheese: RAD51 signals for a high homology double-stranded sequence within the cell. The sequence has to be highly conserved to the mutated sequence it is currently treating, therefore it makes sense to assume that it bears correlation to satellite DNA that has tandem repeats for sequences. But this does not necessarily account for the double-stranded DNA as a whole which may still contain high homology to a given sequence, without needing to have repetitions without the sequence.

The follow are example of conserved matches:
Sample Sequence: TAATAATAATAATAAT
----------------------
Complimentary Satellite DNA Sequence: ATTATTATTATTATTA
Original Satellite DNA Sequence: TAATAATAATAATAAT

Sample Sequence: GCATTAGGCTATC
-----------------------
Complimentary Sequence: CGTAATCCGATAG
Original Sample DNA Sequence: GCATTAGGCTATC

Both sequence are a "match" in that the nucleotides are perfectly aligned (unless I made a careless mistake) and thus conserved. Therefore the RAD51 will sense a similar strand and thus initiate double homologous recombination which does not induce a mistake. It does not necessarily have to be a satellite DNA sequence which is indicated by the tandem repeat sequence "TAA" in Lime.

It is possible that you are attempting to state that a base pair mutation might occur or a single nucleotide polymorphism that might inhibit the matching process. That is an interesting proposition, yet the BRCA2 gene was isolated two months ago and its mechanism is still being tested at the moment. If you find anything, then I would appreciate it. If you want the original paper, I could upload it on photobucket or mediafire for you. As of November, the Nature journal article became unable to read. You should be able to view the article if you have a University account: link

 

[asianaussie]

you used more than one sentence derp

ill look into it after high school chem and psych exams are over

they're surprisingly demanding

 

[Dre89]

Jaswa is pretty much right on everything he said about me, except deist may be a musleading word, because deism means you believe God is not personal, whereas I don't assume. I'm just skeptical of religion and divine relation in general.

The point isn't whether Catholicism is the word of God, I'm not arguing that. It's that people shouldn't criticise what they're not knowledgeable on.

That's why I'm hesitant to criticise Scientology, because I don't know that much about it.

Acrostic-was that meant to be an insult?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Acrostic-was that meant to be an insult?

No, it's supposed to be a compliment.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[KrazyGlue]

Just saying, Dre has said like 100 times that he's not Catholic...

Could someone answer this post?: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11494353&postcount=1594

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre said that he believes in god, just not hell.

As for how to describe him, he uses alot of philosophies.

 

[KrazyGlue]

He's a theist, but not Catholic. It's not very hard to understand. He believes in God, but not all of the Catholic ideas such as Heaven and Hell.

 

[Dre89]

Not just hell, I don't believe in any religion in general.

Krazy to answer that post, the Bible was never interpretted literally until modern times. Catholics derive their interpretation from Tradition, which preceded the collaboration of the Bible.

Your point however does pose problems for literalists, and Scripture-only interpretations with no tradition behind them.

 

[asianaussie]

These days you can categorise anybody with just 'verb/prefix'-ists...it really annoys me for some reason.

Looks like I'm a deist.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Krazy to answer that post, the Bible was never interpretted literally until modern times. Catholics derive their interpretation from Tradition, which preceded the collaboration of the Bible.

Your point however does pose problems for literalists, and Scripture-only interpretations with no tradition behind them.

Oh, thanks for answering.

I guess I was too specific by mentioning the Bible. My broader question, just out of curiosity, is how can Catholics decide on any moral system if God is so far intellectually superior that we can't understand His decisions?

 

[jaswa]

Could someone answer this post?: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11494353&postcount=1594

Huh, I thought objective morals didn't exist?

It's not just conveniently interpretting it the way we want it to sound - it's using the context and passages that link in with it to derive it's meaning. I'm no expert but I'm sure if you ask a minister who's properly trained I'm sure they'll give you a better response, plus they'll know the literal translation/interpretation from the Hebrew/Greek (just for the record the ministers at my church have done 4yr theology degrees and know Hebrew/Greek - not sure what the standard is for others...)

Also Jesus makes clear lots of the things in the Old Testament. Interestingly he continually talks about the Jews legalism *cough* Catholics are no different *cough*