Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

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)

Yes, Clizby is going to stand before the Creator of the universe and claim he is more moral and worthy than God Himself. Where have we heard that before?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And that is your choice, but remember your choice determines where you spend eternity.

More assertions.

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.

This is the kind of thinking that has lead to homosexual being killed for being homosexual. Believe don't think right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

More assertions.

This is the kind of thinking that has lead to homosexual being killed for being homosexual. Believe don't think right?

No, this isn't the kind of thinking that leads to homosexuals being killed. Evil does. If God doesn't exist, there is no set moral code that provides for right or wrong.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, Clizby is going to stand before the Creator of the universe and claim he is more moral and worthy than God Himself. Where have we heard that before?

The thing is you are more moral than the christian god too. You would not kill a homosexual, or commit genocide or make rules to enslave people I am sure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Why does it matter what I think?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The thing is you are more moral than the christian god too. You would not kill a homosexual, or commit genocide or make rules to enslave people I am sure.

Would you be ok with killing Christians for the good of mankind?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I beg to differ. If you talk the talk and nothing other than the talk, it only stands to reason.

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.

How is it fallacious? The evidence we have, the only evidence we have is that intelligent beings are the only means in which information is produced. You can claim there are other means but then it is on you to provide support for that or it is just an assertion. It works the same for you as an atheist as for the theist.

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

Yet were I to ask you how could it be demonstrated you would claim that isn't your problem. However, it is your problem.
1. Astrobiologists and cosmologists claim that the universe appears to be designed and fine tuned.
2. Microbiologists and biologists claim that DNA contains information and has code/language that can be read and altered.
3. Biologists claim that life appears to be designed.
4. Complex life forms suddenly appear in the Cambrian Era without any simpler forms prior to them.
5. The universe exists and no one knows how or why.
6. There was a beginning of the universe as matter, time, energy and matter didn't exist until it did.
7. Our cells contain factories and workers that resemble those humans have designed.
8. The Laws of Logic exist and are of mind and are universal.
9. Prophecy is coming true as we speak.
10. Life always comes from life, intelligence always comes from intelligence.

These are facts. They are evidence to support God's existence. You have chosen to ignore these facts.

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.

It is just an assertion that you claim that there is any other reason for the facts I've laid out. I don't know while is fine doesn't present anything to counter the facts we do know.

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

I didn't make the rules, but you should be aware of them.

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.

Then quit blocking everything about the supernatural. Evidence is what you are ignoring.

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 don't know doesn't counter the evidence and fact that only intelligent beings produce information. The proof/evidence that intelligence is the only way information can come about is that there is ONLY evidence of intelligence being the way information comes about.

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.

So? It doesn't matter if they mean God did it or not. It is a fact that biologists do not believe that chance can explain the code/language or information in DNA.

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

Perhaps you don't know what evidence means?
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Would you be ok with killing Christians for the good of mankind?

No.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I beg to differ. If you talk the talk and nothing other than the talk, it only stands to reason.

What does this have to do with providing evidence for your claims? Just because you provide evidence does not mean people have to think that evidence is sufficient.

How is it fallacious? The evidence we have, the only evidence we have is that intelligent beings are the only means in which information is produced. You can claim there are other means but then it is on you to provide support for that or it is just an assertion. It works the same for you as an atheist as for the theist.

I am not making a claim there are other means. I am saying you and I don't know if there is or not. You are saying it must be an intelligent being behind the information in DNA because I don't know of any other explanation. This is fallacious, you need to show intelligence was behind the information, can you? Saying other information has an intelligence behind it is insufficient.

Yet were I to ask you how could it be demonstrated you would claim that isn't your problem. However, it is your problem.

How so? My position in I don't know how the information got there. You are claiming it is an intelligent being. How can I demonstrate something I don't know what the answer is.

1. Astrobiologists and cosmologists claim that the universe appears to be designed and fine tuned.

Appears is different than it is. If you look at many of those quotes they will say it appears designed but the evidence shows that it is not.

2. Microbiologists and biologists claim that DNA contains information and has code/language that can be read and altered.

Have you read the what they mean by that? How do they define code and language?

3. Biologists claim that life appears to be designed.

Again appears is different than it is.

4. Complex life forms suddenly appear in the Cambrian Era without any simpler forms prior to them.

This is well understood for a while now. One site is Biologos that brings clarity to this question Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

5. The universe exists and no one knows how or why.

And that is ok. We don't just get to assume an answer like a god created it.

6. There was a beginning of the universe as matter, time, energy and matter didn't exist until it did.

I agree.

7. Our cells contain factories and workers that resemble those humans have designed.

How do you know they were designed.

8. The Laws of Logic exist and are of mind and are universal.

I agree.

9. Prophecy is coming true as we speak.

Can you demonstrate this? What about the prophecy in the bible that failed?

10. Life always comes from life, intelligence always comes from intelligence.

This you need to demonstrate.

These are facts. They are evidence to support God's existence. You have chosen to ignore these facts.

I have not ignored them, I have actually responded to these many times as I did above.

It is just an assertion that you claim that there is any other reason for the facts I've laid out. I don't know while is fine doesn't present anything to counter the facts we do know.

This is not what I am saying. I am saying that you have not shown that intelligence IS how the information got there. None of those ten things above are convincing as I responded. You just keep saying I don't know of any other way so it must be intelligence. That is not science or logic.

I didn't make the rules, but you should be aware of them.

You have not shown that the rules are true.

Then quit blocking everything about the supernatural. Evidence is what you are ignoring.

NO, like I said, not being convinced by the evidence is not the same as ignoring it. What evidence have I not responded to?

I don't know doesn't counter the evidence and fact that only intelligent beings produce information. The proof/evidence that intelligence is the only way information can come about is that there is ONLY evidence of intelligence being the way information comes about.

I don't need an argument as to how the information got there to not believe be convinced by your argument. I never said I have the answer.

So? It doesn't matter if they mean God did it or not. It is a fact that biologists do not believe that chance can explain the code/language or information in DNA.

Show me the evidence for this.

Perhaps you don't know what evidence means?
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Yes I know what it is. You don't seem to understand that just because the evidence convinces you does not mean the evidence has to convince anyone else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What does this have to do with providing evidence for your claims? Just because you provide evidence does not mean people have to think that evidence is sufficient.

Missed the point.

I am not making a claim there are other means. I am saying you and I don't know if there is or not. You are saying it must be an intelligent being behind the information in DNA because I don't know of any other explanation. This is fallacious, you need to show intelligence was behind the information, can you? Saying other information has an intelligence behind it is insufficient.

The only evidence...the ONLY evidence is a fact. Now you can claim that we don't know if it is intelligence behind it, but then you are not looking at the evidence as it demonstrates but rather dismissing it due to the worldview you hold. Simple as that. You can say the evidence is not sufficient, but when it is a fact that only intelligence produces information.

How so? My position in I don't know how the information got there. You are claiming it is an intelligent being. How can I demonstrate something I don't know what the answer is.

You're on a roll. Missed the point again. How would the supernatural be demonstrated?

Appears is different than it is. If you look at many of those quotes they will say it appears designed but the evidence shows that it is not.

False. There is no evidence that shows it is not designed.

Have you read the what they mean by that? How do they define code and language?

UH, the same way everyone defines code and language.

Again appears is different than it is.

Provide your evidence that the appearance is not actual design.

This is well understood for a while now. One site is Biologos that brings clarity to this question Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

I didn't look at this prior to responding, so I will but there is nothing I am aware of that its "understood".

And that is ok. We don't just get to assume an answer like a god created it.

Sure, if you don't want to really know if God exists and to search for the truth, you can do what you wish.

I agree.

OK.

How do you know they were designed.

You doubt now that human factories are not designed?

I agree.

No, you actually don't.

Can you demonstrate this? What about the prophecy in the bible that failed?

Yes. In the Bible, in the end times, there was needed a way to insure that everyone in the world had to take the mark to be able to buy or sell. That technology exists now. There had to be a way that the two prophets would be able to be seen by the entire world, again that technology exists now. There are 1817 prophecies in the Bible and only a few that atheists say were not fulfilled. Usually it is because they don't understand duel prophecy or don't understand something about them

This you need to demonstrate.

It is self evident. It is fact. If you disagree provide evidence to dispute it.

This is not what I am saying. I am saying that you have not shown that intelligence IS how the information got there. None of those ten things above are convincing as I responded. You just keep saying I don't know of any other way so it must be intelligence. That is not science or logic.

No, the evidence supports that there is no other way.

You have not shown that the rules are true.

Take it up with God when you see Him.

[/Quote]NO, like I said, not being convinced by the evidence is not the same as ignoring it. What evidence have I not responded to?[/Quote]See above.

I don't need an argument as to how the information got there to not believe be convinced by your argument. I never said I have the answer.

Like I said, we only have evidence of intelligent beings producing information.

Show me the evidence for this.

I will have to go quote mining. I'll do it later.

Yes I know what it is. You don't seem to understand that just because the evidence convinces you does not mean the evidence has to convince anyone else.

Your claiming you don't believe its even evidence.

 

[Kylie]

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.).

Then, it seems that the one who doesn't know what they are talking about is you.

Information in DNA is carried by adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, yet in post 875 you said that this wasn't what you are looking for.

The order in which adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine are found in DNA is due to evolution. Different variations are produced, yet those variations which convey disadvantages are selected against, and those variations that convey advantages are selected for. This is the very essence of evolution, yet you also claimed that evolution was not the answer you were looking for.

It seems you don't actually know how evolution works.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then, it seems that the one who doesn't know what they are talking about is you.

No, it seems to be you. Adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine themselves are not information. They are letters in the code. I was asking how information came about.

Information in DNA is carried by adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, yet in post 875 you said that this wasn't what you are looking for.

It isn't. It is the information behind the code that I am talking about.

The order in which adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine are found in DNA is due to evolution. Different variations are produced, yet those variations which convey disadvantages are selected against, and those variations that convey advantages are selected for. This is the very essence of evolution, yet you also claimed that evolution was not the answer you were looking for.

You are missing that evolution could not occur without a way to reproduce and something to select from. The information has to be present in the system prior to evolutionary process to work.

It seems you don't actually know how evolution works.

Again, it seems you might not know what you think you know.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Missed the point.

The only evidence...the ONLY evidence is a fact. Now you can claim that we don't know if it is intelligence behind it, but then you are not looking at the evidence as it demonstrates but rather dismissing it due to the worldview you hold. Simple as that. You can say the evidence is not sufficient, but when it is a fact that only intelligence produces information.


You're on a roll. Missed the point again. How would the supernatural be demonstrated?

False. There is no evidence that shows it is not designed.

UH, the same way everyone defines code and language.

Provide your evidence that the appearance is not actual design.
I didn't look at this prior to responding, so I will but there is nothing I am aware of that its "understood".
Sure, if you don't want to really know if God exists and to search for the truth, you can do what you wish.

OK.

You doubt now that human factories are not designed?
No, you actually don't.
Yes. In the Bible, in the end times, there was needed a way to insure that everyone in the world had to take the mark to be able to buy or sell. That technology exists now. There had to be a way that the two prophets would be able to be seen by the entire world, again that technology exists now. There are 1817 prophecies in the Bible and only a few that atheists say were not fulfilled. Usually it is because they don't understand duel prophecy or don't understand something about themIt is self evident. It is fact. If you disagree provide evidence to dispute it.


No, the evidence supports that there is no other way.

Take it up with God when you see Him.

NO, like I said, not being convinced by the evidence is not the same as ignoring it. What evidence have I not responded to? See above.

Like I said, we only have evidence of intelligent beings producing information.

I will have to go quote mining. I'll do it later.

Ok I think we need to reset the conversation. This is the argument you are making as I understand it:

1. Information is in DNA.
2. Only intelligence can produce information.
3. Therefore information in DNA was produced by an intelligent being.

You then support premise 2. with the claim that every time we have investigated where information came from we find an intelligent being as the creator.

Is this correct?

If so, I grant you premise 1. I am not convinced it is information but I will see what comes out of Kylie and your conversation about it. I will agree for now that it is information.

My problem is with premise 2. Your support for this is a fallacy. We cannot know that only intelligence can produce information.

You say it is a fact that:

Only intelligence can produce information.

I disagree, this is an assertion at this point, I say it is a fact that:

Only intelligence has been found to produce information.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying every time my car does not start my battery was found to be dead. Then the next time my car does not start I conclude the battery is dead without supporting that claim. This is fallacious, it could be a number of things. What should be said is "I don't know" until we can demonstrate that the battery is dead. You don't know unless you investigate it. Just like information in DNA, unless you can demonstrate that an intelligence is behind the information it remains in the "I don't know" category.

Another question for you. If you were convinced that this argument was flawed would you still believe in a God? I bet you would, I don't think this is the reason you believe in a god but maybe I am wrong.

Your claiming you don't believe its even evidence.

I don't know what to say to a person that believes my disbelief in their god is evidence for their God.

Edited to say: I think I read your comment wrong. You were meaning that I don't consider your evidence to be real evidence? I consider it evidence, I don't think it is sufficient evidence to believe intelligence is behind it. You seem to think that just because some evidence is good enough for you to believe it then should be good enough for others to believe. This is not the case.

 

[Kylie]

No, it seems to be you. Adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine themselves are not information. They are letters in the code. I was asking how information came about.

And the answer to that question is "evolution."

It isn't. It is the information behind the code that I am talking about.

Again, evolution.

You are missing that evolution could not occur without a way to reproduce and something to select from. The information has to be present in the system prior to evolutionary process to work.

A way to reproduce?

As someone who has a child, I can tell you that reproduction is most definitely a thing.

Or how did it start in the first place?

I'll cut and paste from one of my other posts...

All matter needs to start the development of life is imperfect replication, and this could easily be satisfied by an enzyme.

Basically, an enzyme is a chemical that helps a chemical reaction but isn't used up in that reaction. It could be a molecule that can grab two other molecule and join them together. The enzyme is usually named something-ase, based on what it does. So Lactase is an enzyme that works on Lactose.

So, if we have an enzyme that takes molecule A and joins it to Molecule B to make Molecule C, we might called this enzyme Abcase. So we have lots of Abcase molecules floating around, grabbing an A and joining to a B to make a C.

Now, what happens if Molecule C is Abcase itself? We've got Abcase molecules floating around making more of themselves! That's reproduction.

And let's say some of these abcase molecules have a tiny change in the way they are put together which makes them better at joining A to B. Then this is a reproductive advantage, and this variation of Abcase is going to spread throughout the population. That's natural selection. That's evolution. And we haven't even got to cells yet.

And the Urey-Miller experiment counts as an example of an experiment that is progress in the formation of life. It shows how easily organic molecules that are the basis for life can be formed.

Again, it seems you might not know what you think you know.

Gotta disagree with you there.

 

[coffee4u]

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.

I don't think so but I guess I can try once again.

God created morality, he is the author of it. He is the sculptor and we are the clay, as such he gets to decide the rules, he gets to say what is and isn't moral, not us.

If you don't believe in God but only chance random processes then you believe man created morality and man sets it. But man, as we know, changes. The Nazis thought it right and just to gas every Jew they could because they planned to make a master race; white skin, blue eyes and blond hair preferred. If man is just a chance random process then why are they not right? In this system, each and every person is as correct as another. The only thing stopping things like murder or rape in such a system is group objection. Enough people disagree and make a law on it, but group consensus can also change. Another example in the US was Loving vs Loving. Group consensus said before this that interracial marriage was illegal and that it was just and right to jail people for it. I am sure the average American asked on the street would have said interracial marriage was immoral (Not found in the Bible) But group thought changed and the law changed.

So Old Testament law and God.
Lots of strong laws with harsh outcomes towards a people without morality.
God commanded the death penalty for many things and homosexual acts was one of them. God said it was immoral-and that was that. God also had the death penalty for murder. Do you object to that? Why or why not? Your opinion? Who says your opinion is any more valid than another persons?
The Wiki says
"The capital offences include espionage, treason, and death resulting from aircraft hijacking. However, they mostly consist of various forms of murder such as murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder during a kidnapping, murder for hire, and genocide"
Does every single person in the US agree with this? I doubt it.

Back to the verse. God's laws always separates the act from the person. It is for the act itself not for feelings or for being tempted. The law wasn't, go out and find random people who you believe to be homosexuals and kill them, it was for the act itself.
You decree that to be immoral because in your personal view it is. Based on my above example and knowing that hate crimes towards homosexual people happen right now still, other people have a completely different view. Go ask a person who has committed a hate crime on homosexual people and he probably thinks he was just and right. The same could be said for hate crimes against race. If man is just an evolved animal then how can one view be right over the other? Both of you will claim to be right. These things are settled by vote but that too can change. People have shifting morality. God does not.
If you feel the US Government is wrong to bring down the death penalty for say treason, do you take it up with them?

If God says something is immoral then it is. People may feel either way about a topic, people may change the laws, popular opinion will change one way and can change back the other way, but that does not change God's view. It is unchanging for all time.
What did change is how God handled people. In the new Covenant after Jesus took the sins of the world he still says the same things are either right or wrong but he and by extension, his people, are to handle it differently. You change your morality based on how you feel, and if you were born 50 years earlier you may very well have had a completely different mindset over that verse. God's morality doesn't come from changeable feelings.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think so but I guess I can try once again.

God created morality, he is the author of it. He is the sculptor and we are the clay, as such he gets to decide the rules, he gets to say what is and isn't moral, not us.

If you don't believe in God but only chance random processes then you believe man created morality and man sets it. But man, as we know, changes. The Nazis thought it right and just to gas every Jew they could because they planned to make a master race; white skin, blue eyes and blond hair preferred. If man is just a chance random process then why are they not right? In this system, each and every person is as correct as another. The only thing stopping things like murder or rape in such a system is group objection. Enough people disagree and make a law on it, but group consensus can also change. Another example in the US was Loving vs Loving. Group consensus said before this that interracial marriage was illegal and that it was just and right to jail people for it. I am sure the average American asked on the street would have said interracial marriage was immoral (Not found in the Bible) But group thought changed and the law changed.

So Old Testament law and God.
Lots of strong laws with harsh outcomes towards a people without morality.
God commanded the death penalty for many things and homosexual acts was one of them. God said it was immoral-and that was that. God also had the death penalty for murder. Do you object to that? Why or why not? Your opinion? Who says your opinion is any more valid than another persons?
The Wiki says
"The capital offences include espionage, treason, and death resulting from aircraft hijacking. However, they mostly consist of various forms of murder such as murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder during a kidnapping, murder for hire, and genocide"
Does every single person in the US agree with this? I doubt it.

Back to the verse. God's laws always separates the act from the person. It is for the act itself not for feelings or for being tempted. The law wasn't, go out and find random people who you believe to be homosexuals and kill them, it was for the act itself.
You decree that to be immoral because in your personal view it is. Based on my above example and knowing that hate crimes towards homosexual people happen right now still, other people have a completely different view. Go ask a person who has committed a hate crime on homosexual people and he probably thinks he was just and right. The same could be said for hate crimes against race. If man is just an evolved animal then how can one view be right over the other? Both of you will claim to be right. These things are settled by vote but that too can change. People have shifting morality. God does not.
If you feel the US Government is wrong to bring down the death penalty for say treason, do you take it up with them?

If God says something is immoral then it is. People may feel either way about a topic, people may change the laws, popular opinion will change one way and can change back the other way, but that does not change God's view. It is unchanging for all time.
What did change is how God handled people. In the new Covenant after Jesus took the sins of the world he still says the same things are either right or wrong but he and by extension, his people, are to handle it differently. You change your morality based on how you feel, and if you were born 50 years earlier you may very well have had a completely different mindset over that verse. God's morality doesn't come from changeable feelings.

Sounds like you are claiming that there is an objective morality simply because you want there to be an objective morality.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't think so but I guess I can try once again.

God created morality, he is the author of it. He is the sculptor and we are the clay, as such he gets to decide the rules, he gets to say what is and isn't moral, not us.

Well no. He can set what he thinks is moral but we can decide if we agree or not. Commanding the killing of someone for being homosexual is never moral for humans or for a god.

If you don't believe in God but only chance random processes then you believe man created morality and man sets it. But man, as we know, changes. The Nazis thought it right and just to gas every Jew they could because they planned to make a master race; white skin, blue eyes and blond hair preferred. If man is just a chance random process then why are they not right? In this system, each and every person is as correct as another. The only thing stopping things like murder or rape in such a system is group objection. Enough people disagree and make a law on it, but group consensus can also change. Another example in the US was Loving vs Loving. Group consensus said before this that interracial marriage was illegal and that it was just and right to jail people for it. I am sure the average American asked on the street would have said interracial marriage was immoral (Not found in the Bible) But group thought changed and the law changed.

Just because you don't like the implications of there not being a god does not mean he exists.

So Old Testament law and God.
Lots of strong laws with harsh outcomes towards a people without morality.
God commanded the death penalty for many things and homosexual acts was one of them. God said it was immoral-and that was that. God also had the death penalty for murder. Do you object to that? Why or why not? Your opinion? Who says your opinion is any more valid than another persons?
The Wiki says
"The capital offences include espionage, treason, and death resulting from aircraft hijacking. However, they mostly consist of various forms of murder such as murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder during a kidnapping, murder for hire, and genocide"
Does every single person in the US agree with this? I doubt it.

Again so what. This is why we need to use our brains to figure out morals. If we do most will realize killing homosexuals is immoral.

Back to the verse. God's laws always separates the act from the person. It is for the act itself not for feelings or for being tempted. The law wasn't, go out and find random people who you believe to be homosexuals and kill them, it was for the act itself.

How would you feel if god said to kill you if you acted on your heterosexuality?

You decree that to be immoral because in your personal view it is. Based on my above example and knowing that hate crimes towards homosexual people happen right now still, other people have a completely different view. Go ask a person who has committed a hate crime on homosexual people and he probably thinks he was just and right. The same could be said for hate crimes against race. If man is just an evolved animal then how can one view be right over the other? Both of you will claim to be right. These things are settled by vote but that too can change. People have shifting morality. God does not.
If you feel the US Government is wrong to bring down the death penalty for say treason, do you take it up with them?

Again, just because you don't like the implications of no God does not mean he exists.

If God says something is immoral then it is. People may feel either way about a topic, people may change the laws, popular opinion will change one way and can change back the other way, but that does not change God's view. It is unchanging for all time.

Then God still thinks homosexuals should be killed if they act on it?

What did change is how God handled people. In the new Covenant after Jesus took the sins of the world he still says the same things are either right or wrong but he and by extension, his people, are to handle it differently. You change your morality based on how you feel, and if you were born 50 years earlier you may very well have had a completely different mindset over that verse. God's morality doesn't come from changeable feelings.

No, my morality is not only based on feelings it is based on logic and reason as much as possible. I can change my moral stances based on evidence, you cannot. If I was against gay marriage for instance I can see how it hurts people needlessly and i can change my position to increase well being for everyone. You cannot, you must try to deny peoples rights that has nothing to do with you. This is why secular morality is better, it can get better over time.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, this isn't the kind of thinking that leads to homosexuals being killed. Evil does. If God doesn't exist, there is no set moral code that provides for right or wrong.

So God ordering the killing of homosexuals does not lead to homosexuals being killed? Either god did not command this or he is evil if evil is the reason homosexuals are killed. And God did command it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So God ordering the killing of homosexuals does not lead to homosexuals being killed? Either god did not command this or he is evil if evil is the reason homosexuals are killed. And God did command it.

You haven't established that your moral outlook is absolute, let alone completely and utterly objective in such a way that everyone should adhere to it in a prescriptive sense. So, what substantiates your moral position that any single human being deserves to live just because they're human? (You see, this is the point that I'm getting at in that other thread on Ethics that EVERYONE seems to so conveniently ignore and just keep waltzing along and passing by as if they don't have to account fully for either it or their own, non-Christian moral point of view.)

 

[miknik5]

In order for something to exist, doesn´t it have to have a starting point? So, where did the original and first cell come from?