Anyones prayers answered?

[madjac74]

Same way we know about the life and wars of Alexander the Great. Historic verification.

 

But I will assume you won't accept biblical sources so here's some outside supporting evidence:

 

Archaeologists have recently identified where Sodom and Gomorrah were. In addition they have found within the geological strata a layer of calcite over the entire area. Calcite is not found on earth, but only in meteorites.

 

And from that how can you determine there wasn't a single good person living there? Because you have faith?

[M30USA]

And from that how can you determine there wasn't a single good person living there? Because you have faith?

 

I used the phrase "supporting evidence". Much of what everyone believes (you and I) is based on supporting evidence. I have concluded the Bible is true for other reasons than we are discussing here. Therefore I also believe the Sodom account. There is supporting evidence to show that, at worst, my belief is not unfounded.

[YellowShark]

And from that how can you determine there wasn't a single good person living there? Because you have faith?

 

He can't. If the myth is even actually true its impossible that everyone there was evil. How do I know this? Well I am pretty sure there were probably infants and children there... and I am pretty sure they weren't into raping or homosexuality. But there's nothing like a little "divine genocide."

[TheFinalWord]

He can't. If the myth is even actually true its impossible that everyone there was evil. How do I know this? Well I am pretty sure there were probably infants and children there... and I am pretty sure they weren't into raping or homosexuality. But there's nothing like a little "divine genocide."

 

Dear Yellowshark and M30USA,

 

I copied this quote into the thread "Complicated and/or Controversial Scriptures in the Bible"

 

If kindly request that you please continue this discussion there This new thread was created for just this type of discussion. The current thread is about prayer requests and such. Engaging in this dialogue in the current thread will cause the discussion to get lost and mixed up. Kindly, TFW

[quankanne]

LIL4N, I probably need to start praying my rosary, because as much as I want a certain thing, peace of mind is more important. Thanks for the nudge!

 

I have often wondered if in Heaven, if God will allow people to create living beings, or create some sparkly unicorns with wings for me? ah, honey ... he already has, in your fertile imagination!

[M30USA]

More evidence of the self-loathing I was referring to earlier.

 

My flesh trembles for fear of you, and I am afraid of your judgments. (Psalm 119:120)

 

Yeah, that David the Psalmist...what a self-loathing humbug.

[M30USA]

So everybody was just having orgies in the streets? Including all the children or babies. Although thats unlikely and cant be proven I already know your answer as to why we shouldnt look at it as murder for the children. Even if all the children and babies were having orgies in the streets they still wouldnt be held accounatble by god, right? I forget the age, 12 or 13. But you will say if they were killed then they were promised eternal life in heaven with no pain and suffering. So Gos actually rewarded then by taking thier life. Or you will say that yes, everybody including the children and babies were corrupted beyond saving. Am I right?

 

You did open up a possibility, for it is written:

 

The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. (Isaiah 57:1)

 

The interesting thing about death is that it's a punishment to the wicked and a reward to the righteous.

 

I am not saying this is why God presumably killed Sodomite babies. I will never know for sure.

[M30USA]

When I would read things like that, or was told, to me it was simply attempting to explain why good people die. Well maybe not explain but to ease the pain of a loved one lost. Saying that they are rewarded with eternal life and free of pain and sufferring takes the hurt away and is easier for some to accept than they will never see them again. Thats what I always got from it.

 

Wow, I'm surprised you actually heard that verse! Many churches today wouldn't dare to read that--out of fear of losing their following. Gotta keep preaching wealth and prosperity! Shuffle along people! Shuffle along!

[KathyM]

Question: how so you know if a prayer has not been answered? It could have been answered in a different way that what you expected.

If you are a Christian or are open to receiving God's will, all prayers ARE answered. Sometimes it takes awhile though, but God does hear and answer all prayers if you are open to receiving Him. Sometimes the answer is to wait and be patient. Sometimes, you get the answer right away. Sometimes, the answer is no. But all prayers are heard and answered if you are open to receiving God's will in your life.

[stillafool]

God has answered many of my prayers since I was a child. The ones that I thought weren't answered I found out later it was a good thing they weren't. This year something happened in my life that I know no one but God made it happen.

[Ross MwcFan]

Society kills unborn children and it's accepted.

 

What society accepts or doesn't accept means nothing. God is holy and just. If he chooses to kill someone, he is holy and just in doing so.

 

There's a difference between killing a bunch of cells that are not self aware and have no feelings, and killing a sentient being.

 

What makes yout think he is holy and just?

[Ross MwcFan]

It's in the Bible. People don't like to acknowledge it. All we hear is love, love, love in church. But it's in the Bible.

 

The reason we have so many problems with the idea of a God "hating" is because when we as humans hate, it's done with usually selfish reasons or incomplete knowledge. If God hates, you can be sure it's righteous hate unlike ours.

 

He just can never do any wrong can he?

[Ross MwcFan]

God is not tame. We like to pretend he's this perfectly civilized, diplomatic and polished God. He is far from that.

 

Yes, God hates. He hates sin. He hates disobedience. He hates pride.

 

How can there be anything wrong with having pride for goodness sake? It's a healthy positive emotion.

 

Are we just all supposed to feel ashamed all the time instead?

 

Unfortunately almost 30 years of bad theology in America has warped our view on this subject. God has been made into this lovey-dovey teddy bear who will just overlook everything we do "because he loves us". No, it's because he loves us that he will break us and soften our hearts.

 

Just like an abusive husband who regulary gives his wife bruises and black eyes, he's only doing it because he loves her.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[TheFinalWord]

There's a difference between killing a bunch of cells that are not self aware and have no feelings, and killing a sentient being.

 

What makes yout think he is holy and just?

 

Dear Ross,

 

1. When does life begin? How do you know?

 

2. How do you know that for certain it is ethical and sound to kill these cells? Is it possible these cells constitute "life"? (PS: you are currently a "bunch of cells". There are many ultrasound images of babies trying to escape abortion tools and experiencing pain when being dismembered. I'll refrain putting links in. I'm interested in your personal ethical defense.)

 

3. What justifies your opinion?

 

4. Are you 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain?

 

It seems a lot is at stake if you are wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

PS: If anyone has permitted or had an abortion, I am not condemning you.

Edited August 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Ross MwcFan]

Dear Ross,

 

1. When does life begin? How do you know?

 

Got no idea, maybe at the cell stage or before. But what has that got to do with anything? If it was wrong to kill something just because it is classed as life, then it would be wrong and evil to cut a blade of grass, yet it isn't, why? Because it's hardly likely that it'll feel anything, or have thoughts or feelings, or be self aware. It is there fore no different from destroying a piece of metal or a rock for example.

 

2. How do you know that for certain it is ethical and sound to kill these cells? Is it possible these cells constitute "life"? (PS: you are currently a "bunch of cells". There are many ultrasound images of babies trying to escape abortion tools and experiencing pain when being dismembered. I'll refrain putting links in. I'm interested in your personal ethical defense.)

 

You obviously aren't getting my point at all, it's not wrong to kill something because it's alive, it's wrong to kill something that is 'sentient' though. So even if a computer was so advanced that it became self aware, and had emotions, if it was just like a person or animal or whatever, even though it isn't life, it would be wrong, and evil to kill it.

 

If the cells have formed a sentient being, then it is wrong to kill it.

 

3. What justifies your opinion?

 

Which particular opinion?

 

4. Are you 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain?

 

I'm 99.9% sure that when cells have first been formed, they aren't self aware with thoughts, emotions and feelings, there's no brain.

 

It seems a lot is at stake if you are wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

What do you mean?

 

PS: If anyone has permitted or had an abortion, I am not condemning you.

 

Why not? I get the impression that you think it's totally wrong to kill a bunch of cells. It's because of this mindset why stem cell research has been held back so much in America.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[Ross MwcFan]

Man, I hate having debates, I don't think I should have said anything in the topic. But sometimes I just can't help myself.

[TheFinalWord]

Got no idea, maybe at the cell stage or before. But what has that got to do with anything? If it was wrong to kill something just because it is classed as life, then it would be wrong and evil to cut a blade of grass, yet it isn't, why? Because it's hardly likely that it'll feel anything, or have thoughts or feelings, or be self aware. It is there fore no different from destroying a piece of metal or a rock for example.

 

Dear Ross,

 

It matters b/c you are using your limited knowledge to render a verdict on whether these cells that have full potential to become a full grown human being should live or die. You do this with very limited human knowledge. You don't know when life begins and feel justified to end the existence of these cells even with your inability to clearly know when life begins. But you feel justified in condemning God who is all knowing when he ends life. Apply your logic backwards and you will see you're using even greater limitations than God, but feel justified in doing so. A blade of grass has no potential to become a full grown adult. At conception, this is a possibility. Therefore you are making a false analogy.

 

You obviously aren't getting my point at all, it's not wrong to kill something because it's alive, it's wrong to kill something that is 'sentient' though. So even if a computer was so advanced that it became self aware, and had emotions, if it was just like a person or animal or whatever, even though it isn't life, it would be wrong, and evil to kill it.

 

What about potential for sentience? Does that matter to you? Do these cells have human rights and if not, why do you feel justified in making that judgement.

 

You haven't defined when life begins. Is it at one cell? Two cells? What about 4 weeks gestation? How can you as a limited human being make such a call? I would like to see compelling logical argument, especially since you feel warranted to judge God's morality and compare Him to a wife beater.

 

If the cells have formed a sentient being, then it is wrong to kill it.

 

What about potential to form it? Who are you to decide?

 

Which particular opinion?

 

That you have the 100% assurance that destroying these cells is 100% ethical and these cells 100% have no human rights. Not 99.9%, 100%. If we are talking life, there is no margin for error IMHO. If these cells have human rights, you are not justified ethically in denying those rights.

 

Why not? I get the impression that you think it's totally wrong to kill a bunch of cells. It's because of this mindset why stem cell research has been held back so much in America.

 

Because those are separate arguments and I am not God. You claim to be able to judge God's verdicts. I would like to see your rationale for judging the destruction of these "cells" is permissible and they have no rights.

Edited August 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Ross MwcFan]

Dear Ross,

 

It matters b/c you are using your limited knowledge to render a verdict on whether these cells that have full potential to become a full grown human being should live or die. You do this with very limited human knowledge. You don't know when life begins and feel justified to end the existence of these cells even with your inability to clearly know when life begins. But you feel justified in condemning God who is all knowing when he ends life. Apply your logic backwards and you will see your using even greater limitations than God, but feel justified in doing so. A blade of grass has no potential to become a full grown adult. At conception, this is a possibility. Therefore you are making a false analogy.

 

 

 

What about potential for sentience? Does that matter to you? Do these cells have human rights and if not, why do you feel justified in making that judgement.

 

You haven't defined when life begins. Is it at one cell? Two cells? What about 4 weeks gestation? How can you as a limited human being make such a call? I would like to see compelling logical argument, especially since you feel warranted to judge God's morality and compare Him to a wife beater.

 

 

 

What about potential to form it? Who are you to decide?

 

 

 

That you have the 100% assurance that destroying these cells is 100% ethical and these cells 100% have no human rights. Not 99.9%, 100%. If we are talking life, there is no margin for error IMHO. If these cells have human rights, you are not justified ethically in denying those rights.

 

 

 

Because those are separate arguments and I am not God. You claim to be able to judge God's verdicts. I would like to see your rationale for judging the destruction of these "cells" is permissible and they have no rights.

 

Do you think it's wrong to have protected sex, or to ejaculate anywhere other than the inside of a pussy, since the sperm (which is made out of cells and is life) will just die and will not create a would be sentient being? Would that make someone a bad person, a murderer?

[TheFinalWord]

Do you think it's wrong to have protected sex, or to ejaculate anywhere other than the inside of a pussy, since the sperm (which is made out of cells and is life) will just die and will not create a would be sentient being? Would that make someone a bad person, a murderer?

 

The male sperm requires infusion with a female egg to have the potential to form human life (fertilization). It is at this point the genetic information is available to develop a human being. I'm sorry, but comparing a sperm to conception is a false analogy.

[Ross MwcFan]

The male sperm requires infusion with a female egg to have the potential to form human life (fertilization). It is at this point the genetic information is available to develop a human being. I'm sorry, but comparing a sperm to conception is a false analogy.

 

Sperm has the potential to form human life since it will/can form it if it infuses with a female egg.

[TheFinalWord]

Sperm has the potential to form human life since it will/can form it if it infuses with a female egg.

 

So your definition of conception begins with a single sperm? That is your definition? If that is your definition, I guess you will have to argue for that.

 

Mine is the accepted medical concept of fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte and genetic potential for a human is possible.

 

What you are proposing is a new definition. That seems even more difficult to defend than the "group of cells" you feel ethically justifiable to destroy.

 

My point is there is arguments on both sides. Only that if you do not have full information and feel justified in ending the life of these cells with limited information, perhaps you should kindly consider toning down your judgement of God (who has all information). Good day

Edited August 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Ross MwcFan]

So your definition of conception begins with a single sperm? That is your definition? If that is your definition, I guess you will have to argue for that.

 

Mine is the accepted medical concept of fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte and genetic potential for a human is possible.

 

What you are proposing is a new definition. That seems even more difficult to defend than the "group of cells" you feel ethically justifiable to destroy.

 

My point is there is arguments on both sides. Only that if you do not have full information and feel justified in ending the life of these cells with limited human information, perhaps you should tone down your judgement of God (whom has all information). Good day

 

Okay, so it's fine for god to be a murdering, racist, homophobic, evil maniac then.

 

But how dare anyone kill a frigging cell that can't feel anything.

 

This is how twisted and warped a lot of you religous people are.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[TheFinalWord]

Okay, so it's fine for god to be a murdering, racist, homophobic, evil maniac then.

 

But how dare anyone kill a frigging cell that can't feel anything.

 

I think each of those cases has to be examined individually. Keeping in mind too that we humans often make ethical decisions without all information (current case); whereas God makes ethical decisions with all information and knowledge of all possible outcomes.

 

For the other point, see above. The justification for preserving life extends beyond feelings or even sentience. It extends to potential for life (which extends beyond the exact point anyone thinks it begins post-fertilization) and do we as humans have a right to take that potential away. Do these cells have human rights? Tough question.

 

You mention racism, many potential quality of life issues have been denied to minorities (equal chance, jobs, education, etc.). These are even more superficial than potential for life, but vitally important. Potential for life (at whenever you want to define it; I would say fertilization) is even deeper than these cases we often make for potential quality of life. Denying potential for life may have all types of negative outcomes (imagine Einstein or some other human that contributes greatly to society being denied potential for life, or any of us on LS). Perhaps not the best analogy, but just an illustration Main point is that ethically, this denial for potential of life can have many deleterious outcomes, but many people feel justified in their actions none the less even without 100% rationalization.

 

I argue you can never be 100% sure in this decision to end life once the genetic potential to be human is available (fertilization), because we can never know the potential contributions that person may have delivered to society.

 

Peace

Edited August 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Ross MwcFan]

I think each of those cases has to be examined individually. Keeping in mind too that we humans often make ethical decisions without all information (current case); whereas God makes ethical decisions with all information and knowledge of all possible outcomes.

 

For the other point, see above. The justification for preserving life extends beyond feelings or even sentience. It extends to potential for life (which extends beyond the exact point anyone thinks it begins) and do we as humans have a right to take that potential away. Do these cells have human rights? Tough question.

 

You mention racism, many potential quality of life issues have been denied to minorities (equal chance, jobs, education, etc.). These are even more superficial than potential for life, but vitally important. Potential for life (at whenever you want to define it) is even deeper than these cases we often make for potential quality of life. Denying potential for life may have all types of negative outcomes (imagine Einstein or some other human that contributes greatly to society being denied potential for life, or any of us on LS). Perhaps not the best analogy, but just an illustration Main point is that ethically, this denial for potential of life can have many deleterious outcomes, but many people feel justified in their actions none the less even without 100% rationalization.

 

Peace

 

Sorry if I've ended up sounding like I'm pissed off, it's just this kind of thing can wind me up sometimes.

 

But yeah, just by not having kids, or continuing to continually have kids for the rest of your fertile life, you're denying life.

 

What makes you think god has knowledge of everything? Even if he has created everything, that doesn't mean he must have knowledge of everything.

 

And why not say the devil knows everything too, so it's okay for him to kill and cause harm to sentient beings?

[TheFinalWord]

Sorry if I've ended up sounding like I'm pissed off, it's just this kind of thing can wind me up sometimes.

 

But yeah, just by not having kids, or continuing to continually have kids for the rest of your fertile life, you're denying life.

 

What makes you think god has knowledge of everything? I know he created everything, but that doesn't mean he must have knowledge of everything.

 

And why not say the devil knows everything too, so it's okay for him to kill and cause harm to sentient beings?

 

No problem Ross! I know these things get heated. Those are good questions.

 

1) For the continuous kids, I do not think that is quite the same. Often we are limited in resources and parents have to make a decision how many kids to have. Also at the point before conception, no human rights are being denied. The egg and sperm are not considered life in and of themselves. It is at the point of conception that the dilemma lies, IMHO.

 

2) That's a good point. I based the definition of God from the bible. Since we were discussing the God of the bible and his ability to render life or death, we also have to work within the parameters of that God.

 

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. "

 

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

You do raise a good point. At some points in the bible, Christ (who is God) said He does not have all knowledge, i.e. does not know when God the Father will end the dispensation of grace. That is kind of an off-topic though. We would have to get into the nature of Christ.

 

3) The devil is a creation of God and is limited. He also does not operate in accordance with the Nature of God (where we Christians would say morality is grounded). Christ said He was a murderer and the father of lies. He does have immense power; however, he also operates in the spiritual realm. The bible gives us little information on how this realm operates. We know that through prayer that invokes Christ and "wearing spiritual armor" we can have power in the spiritual realm.

 

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

 

Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. "

 

 

Sorry these are fast. In a bit of a hurry. Hope this gives some explanation. Take care.

Edited August 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord