Ask God for Me

[coffee4u]

I thought you would probably bow out and not answer the hard questions I posed about the text. I did not think you would then blame me for your inability to respond.

Nothing to do with them being 'hard' it's your attitude.
If you were generally interested I would continue but I know the kind of replies I will get before I even start. Have a good day, I have things to do.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about.

You are the one who seems to be unable to define "information."

Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, I don't see how that would prevent you from providing a definition for it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nothing to do with them being 'hard' it's your attitude.
If you were generally interested I would continue but I know the kind of replies I will get before I even start. Have a good day, I have things to do.

I am just quoting scripture. If you had easy answers you would have just answered me. I wonder if you knew that this kind of slavery was promoted in the bible since you told me that slavery in the bible was like indentured servitude.

I know that confronting the bible in this way is hard, I have been there. But I am more free and a better person for looking at the bible and my faith through unbiased eyes. If you don't have good answers for these verses then I would encourage you to investigate and find the truth.

 

[coffee4u]

I am just quoting scripture. If you had easy answers you would have just answered me. I wonder if you knew that this kind of slavery was promoted in the bible since you told me that slavery in the bible was like indentured servitude.

I know that confronting the bible in this way is hard, I have been there. But I am more free and a better person for looking at the bible and my faith through unbiased eyes. If you don't have good answers for these verses then I would encourage you to investigate and find the truth.

You know that I am not responding to the scripture quotes but your own views sprinkled through posts. You don't want to understand scripture, you want to misunderstand it so you can use it to make your point that "God is immoral and cruel". Well I will leave you to it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You know that I am not responding to the scripture quotes but your own views sprinkled through posts. You don't want to understand scripture, you want to misunderstand it so you can use it to make your point that "God is immoral and cruel". Well I will leave you to it.

This is untrue but I understand why you need to believe this. How do I misunderstand this scripture:

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Lev 20:13

How is it wrong to question the morality of this verse? If I am misunderstanding this verse and it is moral for God to command killing homosexuals then please let me know. If you can't or won't then I will continue to believe it was an immoral command by God. It is not that I want God to be immoral and cruel it just seems the evidence points to this conclusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is untrue but I understand why you need to believe this. How do I misunderstand this scripture:

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Lev 20:13

How is it wrong to question the morality of this verse? If I am misunderstanding this verse and it is moral for God to command killing homosexuals then please let me know. If you can't or won't then I will continue to believe it was an immoral command by God. It is not that I want God to be immoral and cruel it just seems the evidence points to this conclusion.

Sure, the evidence is indeed pointing to the fact that God is immoral and cruel. It's just so freak'n obvious, isn't it?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, to assert this "obviousness" is kind of like using stealth tactics in warfare, with the idea that one's own semantic or ideological position remains obscured or veiled so that it doesn't get targeted for questioning and possible deconstruction itself ...

... and it keeps the pretense of having an 'appearance' of moral absoluteness at the fore, in front of everyone else's faces, doesn't it?

But, as we all attempt to bite down on the moral and ethical assumptions that anyone TODAY tries to proffer to other people, I'm afraid that in the fuller reality of our doing so, we're going to find ourselves...

Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sure, the evidence is indeed pointing to the fact that God is immoral and cruel. It's just so freak'n obvious, isn't it?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, to assert this "obviousness" is kind of like using stealth tactics in warfare, with the idea that one's own semantic or ideological position remains obscured or veiled so that it doesn't get targeted for questioning and possible deconstruction itself ...

... and it keeps the pretense of having an 'appearance' of moral absoluteness at the fore, in front of everyone else's faces, doesn't it?

But, as we all attempt to bite down on the moral and ethical assumptions that anyone TODAY tries to proffer to other people, I'm afraid that in the fuller reality of our doing so, we're going to find ourselves...

Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

If you can make yourself believe that commanding homosexuals to be killed is moral then ok. I cannot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you can make yourself believe that commanding homosexuals to be killed is moral then ok. I cannot.

And I'm no Reformed Theonomist, so you're kind of preaching to the choir here.

But the fact, Jack, is that if the Bible is true, and whether any one of us likes or doesn't like, agrees or disagrees with it, the idea that God will hold all of humanity to account for all of its sins---and not just for some mediocre sin like homosexuality---is something we'll all have to existentially and subjectively wrestle with.

The upshot to this is, EVEN IF THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE, this doesn't leave modern human rights thinking unfettered ... and this ethical circumstance wouldn't, if it obtains, leave the atheist on a superior moral height over anyone else by which to make substantial, let alone absolute, moral or ethical judgements upon anyone else.

It's quite an ethical quandary if you ask me, for both theists and atheists.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And I'm no Reformed Theonomist, so you're kind of preaching to the choir here.

But the fact, Jack, is that if the Bible is true, and whether any one of us likes or doesn't like, agrees or disagrees with it, the idea that God will hold all of humanity to account for all of its sins---and not just for some mediocre sin like homosexuality---is something we'll all have to existentially and subjectively wrestle with.

Yes, if it is true.

The upshot to this is, EVEN IF THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE, this doesn't leave modern human rights thinking unfettered ... and this ethical circumstance wouldn't, if it obtains, leave the atheist on a superior moral height over anyone else by which to make substantial, let alone absolute, moral or ethical judgements upon anyone else.

It's quite an ethical quandary if you ask me, for both theists and atheists.

I don't find much ethical quandary on whether we should kill homosexuals or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, if it is true.

I don't find much ethical quandary on whether we should kill homosexuals or not.

That's not my point. Your lack of having a quandry in this regard is an outcome of your holding the ethical (subjective, not absolute) position that you do.

Moreover, I notice that you don't seem to recognize that neither is this issue an ethical quandry for Christians who focus more, and with better hermeneutical insight, upon the New Testament (as they should) than they do upon the Old Testament. You seem to be oblivious to this fact. And it is a fact. A BIG FACT, in fact!

So, in my own Christian view, I don't see that Jesus would like for Christians to kill any homosexual or any other sinner (like myself) for that matter, whether we're talking about today or about whatever may come tomorrow.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's not my point. Your lack of having a quandry in this regard is an outcome of your holding the ethical (subjective, not absolute) position that you do.

Moreover, I notice that you don't seem to recognize that neither is this issue an ethical quandry for Christians who focus more, and with better hermeneutical insight, upon the New Testament (as they should) than they do upon the Old Testament. You seem to be oblivious to this fact. And it is a fact. A BIG FACT, in fact!

So, in my own Christian view, I don't see that Jesus would like for Christians to kill any homosexual or any other sinner (like myself) for that matter, whether we're talking about today or about whatever may come tomorrow.

I agree. But the point you are missing is that if the bible is true then God at one time commanded homosexuals to be killed. Many Christians think that God is immutable so this is the god many Christians worship today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. But the point you are missing is that if the bible is true then God at one time commanded homosexuals to be killed. Many Christians think that God is immutable so this is the god many Christians worship today.

On a practical social level, I'm just going to say, "Even if Christians think God is immutable, so what?! What does this have to do with whether or not Christians SHOULD kill a homosexual TODAY!?"

I'd say that it has little to nothing to do with it. Jesus has placed mercy, grace, love, compassion, empathy, forbearance and possible forgiveness at the forefront of the spiritual economy, so if anyone is bone-headed enough to try to ignore this or to attempt to work around this New Testament fact, then they deserve all the castigation that can be loaded upon them, and not just because they handle the Bible so ignorantly where the idea of God's immutability is concerned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have this exactly backwards. You are claiming that an intelligent being is behind the information in DNA. If you can demonstrate that then you will win a Nobel prize. I am claiming I don't know. I don't have to show anything for my position.

Are you able to put away the atheist handbook and just seriously discuss this? You are literally sounding like a pre-recorded troll. You have a mind, you are intelligent, lets go there instead of uniform answers from atheists are us.

We believe they are products of intelligence because we can demonstrate that they are. You have not demonstrated that intelligence was behind the info.

We know information is a product of intelligence, we don't know of anything other than intelligence that produces information.
You are saying that you don't know why or what has produced the information in DNA; however, you are a man on a search for evidence for God and simply claiming that the supernatural can't be demonstrated rather means that unless we have a certified copy of His signature, a signed photo or at the least a scientific paper on the existence of God you will remain unconvinced. So you are not looking for evidence in support of God or the supernatural at all, you are asking for God not to be supernatural so that you can have unequivocal proof of His existence. God doesn't work that way, He is supernatural, He wants you to have choice so He doesn't make it absolute that you worship Him. So you have set yourself up for your own destruction.

Nope. I am open to a god claim but if you are going to use supernatural explanations for your claim then you need to show that the supernatural is possible. Something that does not exist cannot be an explanation for something. First demonstrate the supernatural then we will talk.

No, you are not open to God, God is supernatural (so to speak) so if you are not open to that you are not open to God.

You cannot show that intelligence is the only mechanism that uses codes and languages.

Since intelligence is the only known mechanism that uses codes and languages it is up to you to provide something that doesn't.

Also, I am not convinced that there is a code or language in life. We know that codes and languages are created by people because we can demonstrate that. You cannot demonstrate this for what you think is a code in life. This is what you don't seem to get

. I'm sorry you are not convinced, you might want to look at the links I provided to Tinker that might help.

So we know how life started on this planet? That is news to me.

Most biologists feel chance is not sufficient to explain how information in DNA was produced.

I don't know, that is your problem. You are making the claim. You need better evidence for intelligence other than just saying we can demonstrate intelligence for other intelligence so we just need to believe intelligence is behind life.

If you can show how information is produced other than intelligent beings then I would be glad to look at it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

On a practical social level, I'm just going to say, "Even if Christians think God is immutable, so what?! What does this have to do with whether or not Christians SHOULD kill a homosexual TODAY!?"

I NEVER said Christians should kill homosexuals today.

I'd say that it has little to nothing to do with it. Jesus has placed mercy, grace, love, compassion, empathy, forbearance and possible forgiveness at the forefront of the spiritual economy, so if anyone is bone-headed enough to try to ignore this or to attempt to work around this New Testament fact, then they deserve all the castigation that can be loaded upon them, and not just because they handle the Bible so ignorantly where the idea of God's immutability is concerned.

My point is that a God that once commanded the killing of homosexuals and has not changed is immoral and unworthy of worship. Even if that God says not to command it today. Killing people for being homosexual is never moral.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I NEVER said Christians should kill homosexuals today.

My point is that a God that once commanded the killing of homosexuals and has not changed is immoral and unworthy of worship. Even if that God says not to command it today. Killing people for being homosexual is never moral.

Oh, and so, if there's a God, specifically the One who is the Father of Jesus Christ, His Son, you're the one who's going to hold Him accountable then. I see.

Well, good luck with that! (see Psalm 2)

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one who seems to be unable to define "information."

Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, I don't see how that would prevent you from providing a definition for it.

Simply: “the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects” Sorry don't have the link, I copied this last night and had to leave.

The DNA in living cells contains coded information. It is not surprising that so many of the terms used in describing DNA and its functions are language terms. We speak of the genetic code. DNA is transcribed into RNA. RNA is translated into protein. Protein, in a sense, is coded in a foreign language from DNA. RNA could be said to be a dialect of DNA. Such designations are not simply convenient or just anthropomorphisms. They accurately describe the situation (1984, pp. 85-86, emp. in orig.).

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one who seems to be unable to define "information."

Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, I don't see how that would prevent you from providing a definition for it.

Simply: “the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects” Sorry don't have the link, I copied this last night and had to leave.

The DNA in living cells contains coded information. It is not surprising that so many of the terms used in describing DNA and its functions are language terms. We speak of the genetic code. DNA is transcribed into RNA. RNA is translated into protein. Protein, in a sense, is coded in a foreign language from DNA. RNA could be said to be a dialect of DNA. Such designations are not simply convenient or just anthropomorphisms. They accurately describe the situation (1984, pp. 85-86, emp. in orig.).

That's not my point. Your lack of having a quandry in this regard is an outcome of your holding the ethical (subjective, not absolute) position that you do.

Moreover, I notice that you don't seem to recognize that neither is this issue an ethical quandry for Christians who focus more, and with better hermeneutical insight, upon the New Testament (as they should) than they do upon the Old Testament. You seem to be oblivious to this fact. And it is a fact. A BIG FACT, in fact!

So, in my own Christian view, I don't see that Jesus would like for Christians to kill any homosexual or any other sinner (like myself) for that matter, whether we're talking about today or about whatever may come tomorrow.

Thou shall not kill...its written in stone so to speak.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Are you able to put away the atheist handbook and just seriously discuss this? You are literally sounding like a pre-recorded troll. You have a mind, you are intelligent, lets go there instead of uniform answers from atheists are us.

Then you don't have to respond to me. It is simply a fact that if you make a claim you have to support it and I am not required to believe it and vice versa. Has nothing to do with atheist sites etc.

We know information is a product of intelligence, we don't know of anything other than intelligence that produces information.

And this is a logical fallacy. We know information is a product of intelligence because we can show that it is. But to say just because we do not know any other ways information can come about means it can't come about by another means is fallacious.

You are saying that you don't know why or what has produced the information in DNA; however, you are a man on a search for evidence for God and simply claiming that the supernatural can't be demonstrated rather means that unless we have a certified copy of His signature, a signed photo or at the least a scientific paper on the existence of God you will remain unconvinced. So you are not looking for evidence in support of God or the supernatural at all, you are asking for God not to be supernatural so that you can have unequivocal proof of His existence.

I NEVER said in any way the the supernatural CAN'T be demonstrated. I said it has not been demonstrated.

God doesn't work that way, He is supernatural, He wants you to have choice so He doesn't make it absolute that you worship Him.

And you cannot support any of this. This is just assertion. Also, If God makes himself known to us that does not mean we have to follow Him. You believe in free will right? If so, then we will have a choice.

So you have set yourself up for your own destruction.

Ah yes, and now the threats. Believe in things without evidence or be destroyed.

No, you are not open to God, God is supernatural (so to speak) so if you are not open to that you are not open to God.

Please stop saying I am not open to the supernatural. This is untrue. I have corrected you many times on this. I am open to any truth, but I cannot believe the supernatural exists without evidence.

Since intelligence is the only known mechanism that uses codes and languages it is up to you to provide something that doesn't.

No it is not. I am not claiming there is. I am saying I don't know how the information in life came about. You are saying that you know but you cannot demonstrate you are right. It is up to you to show evidence that intelligence is the only way information can come about.

. I'm sorry you are not convinced, you might want to look at the links I provided to Tinker that might help.

Most biologists feel chance is not sufficient to explain how information in DNA was produced.

I never said chance was the reason. I said I don't know but chance is a possibility. If this is true I doubt they then mean that a god did it.

If you can show how information is produced other than intelligent beings then I would be glad to look at it.

I cannot. But that does not mean that you are right, you need to show with evidence that you are right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I NEVER said Christians should kill homosexuals today.

My point is that a God that once commanded the killing of homosexuals and has not changed is immoral and unworthy of worship. Even if that God says not to command it today. Killing people for being homosexual is never moral.

And that is your choice, but remember your choice determines where you spend eternity. Feeling God is immoral or unworthy is not for you to say, God made the rules and if you don't play, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Oh, and so, if there's a God, specifically the One who is the Father of Jesus Christ, His Son, you're the one who's going to hold Him accountable then. I see.

Well, good luck with that! (see Psalm 2)

I never said that. Do you think it is ever moral to kill someone for being a homosexual?