Ask God for Me

[Kylie]

No actually itś not the same thing...
And the ¨EXPERTS¨ are the ones telling you.

Then I think that when it comes to God, the "experts" would be able to agree on more than just the basics.

May I ask YOU, your qualifications for making this statement?

My qualifications for making which statement? That the experts on God can't actually agree? *Points to the huge number of religions and points to the many different sects of Christianity.*

You certainly do NOT believe in GOD so how can you say to me that I don´t know what I am talking about when I say THE FOUNDATION is sufficient?

Because if the experts can't agree on the details, how can I be sure they've got the foundation right?

THE FOUNDATION is sufficient...and I am NOT wrong...

You have not demonstrated either of these.

As to qualifications regarding ¨evolution¨?

Again, the scientists have incomplete information...my qualifications are that I know the information they are missing, but they too, don´t want to listen to the ¨ËXPERTS¨

So you demand that I listen to the experts on God even though they don't have all the details, but when it comes to evolution, the fact that the experts don't have all the details means it's obviously wrong?

Make up your mind. If the experts don't have all the details, can we believe them or not?

 

[Kylie]

Why would you say that? How did you come to that conclusion? Please provide some evidence for this statement. Thank you

Why would I say that it lumps the entire NT in as one text when it is not one text? Because it literally does that. It puts NT in the author column.

It says that there are 5600 copies of the New Testament. But that is not true. The New Testament is a collection of works, and we have differing numbers of copies of each text. This site seems to just be counting up the numbers of any text included as part of the NT but that creates a biased view.

OK...agreed...can you point to where they were changed? I take it from this article that this is what the author of the article is attesting to...the fact of its accuracy..

So you want me to tell you how they have changed from the original despite the fact that the originals don't exist for us to compare them to?

 

[Kylie]

Well considering you are demanding to know everyone's credentials, lets have yours.

Oh, I fully admit that I have no credentials when it comes to evolution. I have an interest, yes, and I have read quite a bit and learned quite a bit, but I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert.

That's why I get my information about evolution from the people who ARE the experts.

And when it's a bunch of experts on evolution saying one thing about evolution, and you saying something else about evolution, guess who I'm going to side with?

Now, since I have been kind enough to answer your question, how about you have the decency to answer mine and tell me what qualifications you have that allow you to discount evolution the way you have?

No, I didn't assume your answers were incorrect, I know they are incorrect. Your answers were simplistic, I mean who says something like you being a mother assured you that reproducing was a thing! Very scientific and completely off point.

This seems like a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action.

 

[Kylie]

False.
In the old testament:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a man as one lies with woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (Leviticus 20:13).

Leviticus also advocates the death penalty for adultery.

Paul writes: "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Paul writes in Corinthians: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Irrelevant.

God's instructions to to have same sex relationships has no bearing on MEN keeping virgin girls. What Paul wrote also has nothing to do with having sex with virgin girls captured in battle.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, I fully admit that I have no credentials when it comes to evolution. I have an interest, yes, and I have read quite a bit and learned quite a bit, but I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert.

That's why I get my information about evolution from the people who ARE the experts.

And when it's a bunch of experts on evolution saying one thing about evolution, and you saying something else about evolution, guess who I'm going to side with?

Now, since I have been kind enough to answer your question, how about you have the decency to answer mine and tell me what qualifications you have that allow you to discount evolution the way you have?



This seems like a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action.

I will answer you, but before I do I would like you to explain why you think I have discounted evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Irrelevant.

God's instructions to to have same sex relationships has no bearing on MEN keeping virgin girls. What Paul wrote also has nothing to do with having sex with virgin girls captured in battle.

You claimed that the only mention of prohibitive sex was in numbers. Obviously that is not true.

 

[miknik5]

Then I think that when it comes to God, the "experts" would be able to agree on more than just the basics.



My qualifications for making which statement? That the experts on God can't actually agree? *Points to the huge number of religions and points to the many different sects of Christianity.*



Because if the experts can't agree on the details, how can I be sure they've got the foundation right?



You have not demonstrated either of these.



So you demand that I listen to the experts on God even though they don't have all the details, but when it comes to evolution, the fact that the experts don't have all the details means it's obviously wrong?

Make up your mind. If the experts don't have all the details, can we believe them or not?

Wow...How did you misinterpret what I wrote?

 

[Kylie]

I will answer you, but before I do I would like you to explain why you think I have discounted evolution.

More games from you. Your refusal to answer simple questions suggests that all you can do is try to avoid the topic as long as possible.

I think you've discounted evolution because you don't understand it. You claim it doesn't explain the fact that cells contain information, despite the fact that it does. If you understood evolution you'd understand that fact. And you said the how evolution occurred was not explained, at least, not by me. See post 804.

Or are you suggesting that you are a person who accepts that evolution can take place, but you don't understand that it is the answer to the question you were asking?

Now, would you FINALLY answer my question?

 

[Kylie]

You claimed that the only mention of prohibitive sex was in numbers. Obviously that is not true.

Then you obviously didn't understand the point I was making.

Coffee4U claimed that the only sexual sin that the Bible singles out is paedophilia, a claim made in post 1090, and which I directly quoted in post 1093.

I then pointed out a Bible verse in which people were instructed to kill everyone except for the young virgin girls, who were to be kept alive "for yourselves."

That sounds like a command for paedophilia to me. I mean, how old do you think such girls were?

So please try to actually follow the conversation.

 

[Kylie]

Wow...How did you misinterpret what I wrote?

Maybe you were unclear?

I mean, I posted in response to five different points you made in my last post, and yet you haven't told me which of them I misinterpreted.

 

[coffee4u]

Then you obviously didn't understand the point I was making.

Coffee4U claimed that the only sexual sin that the Bible singles out is paedophilia, a claim made in post 1090, and which I directly quoted in post 1093.

I then pointed out a Bible verse in which people were instructed to kill everyone except for the young virgin girls, who were to be kept alive "for yourselves."

That sounds like a command for paedophilia to me. I mean, how old do you think such girls were?

The girls would have been of marriageable age, which back then was about 13-15. They were considered to be adults as were the boys of that same age. They would have been married in. The role of women was to marry and have children. They generally had no say in their own tribes either, marriages were mostly arranged by the fathers. There own tribe or nation may have been a far worse place to be.

If God said an entire group were evil and needed to be wiped out then that was his judgment.
Deuteronomy 18
9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices, the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.
These were people that sacrificed their children in fires, which is why I said they were basically barbarians.

I was talking about the New Testament, the New Covenant not the Old. I was saying God makes special mention of punishment to those that hurt children and I said that in the context of degrees of sin. That God may punish them more.

 

[Kylie]

The girls would have been of marriageable age, which back then was about 13-15. They were considered to be adults as were the boys of that same age. They would have been married in. The role of women was to marry and have children. They generally had no say in their own tribes either, marriages were mostly arranged by the fathers. There own tribe or nation may have been a far worse place to be.

If God said an entire group were evil and needed to be wiped out then that was his judgment.
Deuteronomy 18
9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices, the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.
These were people that sacrificed their children in fires, which is why I said they were basically barbarians.

I was talking about the New Testament, the New Covenant not the Old. I was saying God makes special mention of punishment to those that hurt children and I said that in the context of degrees of sin. That God may punish them more.

So God is of the opinion that taking 13-15 year old girls to be the brides of the men who captured them in battle is acceptable?

 

[miknik5]

Maybe you were unclear?

I mean, I posted in response to five different points you made in my last post, and yet you haven't told me which of them I misinterpreted.

I was flabbergasted....I couldn´t find the words and where to begin...

 

[miknik5]

Mentioning the same name does not mean they are telling me the same thing.

The devil is in the details, as they say.

Therefore, remove the ¨details¨"and concentrate on THE FOUNDATION which is, by the way, THAT NAME...

If they have all mentioned to you the SAME NAME...they have done right in doing that...
Now you can do YOUR homework to fill in the details...

 

[miknik5]

That's like saying focaccia and Ciabatta are the same thing.

Your analogy doesn't work, and you still haven't said what qualifications you have that allow you to determine that the experts are wrong.

This was your response to my statement: The FOUNDATION is sufficient - please review my previous post in which I tried not to be as cryptic as I had initially been..

THE FOUNDATION - JESUS...and my analogy IS sufficient and does work because it is the missing piece of the puzzle that the ¨ëxperts¨overlook...therefore, they have incomplete information...they can only go back so far to draw their theoretical conclusions...and they certainly can see the change from their studies...so they do know that some sort of change (as they call evolution) has occurred.

However, they do not have the original model for their study, so their study is already incomplete and tainted...and starts further along from the starting point.

 

[coffee4u]

So God is of the opinion that taking 13-15 year old girls to be the brides of the men who captured them in battle is acceptable?

Married women had some staus and protection.
Malachi 2:14-15
But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
Exodus 21:10
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Deuteronomy 24:5
“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.
The surrounding nations gave women no rights.
Most of those girls would have been very thankful to find themselves in a civilisation with actual rules and protection.

God created us, he sets the rules.
Don't like it? Take it up with him.
Don't believe in him? I guess then you have nothing to complain about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you obviously didn't understand the point I was making.

Coffee4U claimed that the only sexual sin that the Bible singles out is paedophilia, a claim made in post 1090, and which I directly quoted in post 1093.

I then pointed out a Bible verse in which people were instructed to kill everyone except for the young virgin girls, who were to be kept alive "for yourselves."

That sounds like a command for paedophilia to me. I mean, how old do you think such girls were?

So please try to actually follow the conversation.

I stand corrected.

 

[Oncedeceived]

More games from you. Your refusal to answer simple questions suggests that all you can do is try to avoid the topic as long as possible.

I have been\\ on this forum around 20 years. I was on another one prior to that. I spent the majority of that time in the Creation/evolution forum. One of the most frequent argument for unbelievers is that believers don't know about evolution. They can't seem to wrap their minds around the premise that its possible for anyone that believes that God exists, could possibly have a clear understanding of Evolution. I have had the pleasure of conversing with some very intelligent and knowledgeable atheists. We had different worldviews and different takes the topic but we could honestly converse about it. So I have little patience for someone like you who for some unknown reason believes they are superior to all Christians across the board. Evidence of this is how you speak to all of us and it is disrespectful and arrogant.

My husband has his Master's in Biology, was a college instructor and has graciously shared his knowledge with me. He shared with our children as well, our favorite game when traveling was a game he made up that someone thought of something in a kingdom, class and so forth and the rest of us had to guess what it was. So the love of Biology and Science was a very important part of our lives. I was a sponge towards Science and I have spent all but the last four years researching not only evolution but I also found an interest in Astrobiology and Cosmology. I had started looking into Quantum physics and while not very well versed in this area, I find it intriguing. I kept up with new discoveries and read online papers and studies. Abiogenesis has been a focus for me and I have read about the different hypotheses and the problems that Scientists have in each. So while I too am not an expert, nor do I hold a degree, I've had the opportunity to learn about evolution from someone who does.

I think you've discounted evolution because you don't understand it.

Totally false.

You claim it doesn't explain the fact that cells contain information, despite the fact that it does. If you understood evolution you'd understand that fact.

If you understood evolution you would clearly not state that as fact. Scientists are still researching just how information would be possible in the earliest reproduction.

And you said the how evolution occurred was not explained, at least, not by me. See post 804.

Evolution doesn't occur until the information can be received, edited and reproduced.

Or are you suggesting that you are a person who accepts that evolution can take place, but you don't understand that it is the answer to the question you were asking?

I don't believe that evolution is an unguided or lacking of a goal.

 

[Kylie]

Therefore, remove the ¨details¨"and concentrate on THE FOUNDATION which is, by the way, THAT NAME...

If they have all mentioned to you the SAME NAME...they have done right in doing that...
Now you can do YOUR homework to fill in the details...

And why would the details all be different if they all have the same objective truth?

I mean, two people could say, "Kylie went to the shops today," and they'd have the foundation the same. But if one said that she went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, and the other person said she went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, would you believe them? Of course not. The foundation of their claims - Kylie went to the shops today - may be the same, but the details are inconsistent, and you'd quite rightly think that something fishy was going on. They can't both be right, so one of them has to be wrong. But which one? You can't tell. And maybe both of them are wrong!

So when the details don't match, we MUST consider the foundation as suspect as well.

So when you say the foundation is sufficient, I can't believe you. The foundation is NOT sufficient.

 

[Kylie]

Married women had some staus and protection.
Malachi 2:14-15
But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
Exodus 21:10
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Deuteronomy 24:5
“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.
The surrounding nations gave women no rights.
Most of those girls would have been very thankful to find themselves in a civilisation with actual rules and protection.

God created us, he sets the rules.
Don't like it? Take it up with him.
Don't believe in him? I guess then you have nothing to complain about.

Ah, so God was telling these guys to take all the virgin girls so they could marry them and treat them with respect, huh?

"They came in and killed everyone and forced us to marry them, but they've been so respectful!"

Of course.