God didn't create us as robots, He gave us freewill, And God will only do what He want's in us, as we let Him.
Questions about the bible !
- Thread starter alexxcjRO
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
God didn't create us as robots, He gave us freewill, And God will only do what He want's in us, as we let Him.
P
prodigal
Guest
Genesis 50:20New King James Version (NKJV)
20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.
AlexxcjROwrote: 1. We are going in circles, again by saying that we mere mortals can’t understand God(Yahweh).
Response: I don't think I said that we can't understand God at all, or that we can't begin to understand him.
Q1: Again, if I can’t criticize and analyze God (Yahweh) for me being mere mortal why are you jumping in God defense you being like me mere mortal?
A1: … It is fine for you to criticize and analyze God. But then it should also be fine for me to analyze and criticize your view of God. If you can analyze God and critique him (that is fine!); it is also fine for me to say that your view may be dim and skewed.
Q2: Again, if by your logic we can’t have a debate on this matter why are you debating me on this topic?
A2: … I am fine having a debate on the issue; I was saying that I don't agree with your conclusions - they don't make sense to me (but I admit I am a finite mortal being - but that doesn't mean I am not going to try to understand God)
Q3: Again I ask why does God (Yahweh) want to have a private relationship with us mere mortals that can’t begin to understand him?
A3: … We can begin to understand him. And I think you have some good understandings of who God is and how He operates: I am trying to come to God's defense and suggest his motives and attitudes and characteristics are not completely as you perceive.
Q4: Again I ask why can’t I understand God (Yahweh) if he made me in his image?
A4: …We can begin to understand God to a certain extent. Much about God is revealed in his Word and also some of what He has done in the world. When I talk about us being "mere finite humans" I don't mean to say that we shouldn't try to or can't discuss God: I am trying to explain why our view may just not always be the correct view.
Example: Suppose you suddenly knew everything there is to know about science (what scientists might know in ten thousand years from now). And now you are having a conversation with a scientist of today. I think you would probably say their vision of some things is a bit skewed.
For #2 on your last post : the problem of evil: I will come back to that later, and try to pick up a view previous points first.
Response: I don't think I said that we can't understand God at all, or that we can't begin to understand him.
Q1: Again, if I can’t criticize and analyze God (Yahweh) for me being mere mortal why are you jumping in God defense you being like me mere mortal?
A1: … It is fine for you to criticize and analyze God. But then it should also be fine for me to analyze and criticize your view of God. If you can analyze God and critique him (that is fine!); it is also fine for me to say that your view may be dim and skewed.
Q2: Again, if by your logic we can’t have a debate on this matter why are you debating me on this topic?
A2: … I am fine having a debate on the issue; I was saying that I don't agree with your conclusions - they don't make sense to me (but I admit I am a finite mortal being - but that doesn't mean I am not going to try to understand God)
Q3: Again I ask why does God (Yahweh) want to have a private relationship with us mere mortals that can’t begin to understand him?
A3: … We can begin to understand him. And I think you have some good understandings of who God is and how He operates: I am trying to come to God's defense and suggest his motives and attitudes and characteristics are not completely as you perceive.
Q4: Again I ask why can’t I understand God (Yahweh) if he made me in his image?
A4: …We can begin to understand God to a certain extent. Much about God is revealed in his Word and also some of what He has done in the world. When I talk about us being "mere finite humans" I don't mean to say that we shouldn't try to or can't discuss God: I am trying to explain why our view may just not always be the correct view.
Example: Suppose you suddenly knew everything there is to know about science (what scientists might know in ten thousand years from now). And now you are having a conversation with a scientist of today. I think you would probably say their vision of some things is a bit skewed.
For #2 on your last post : the problem of evil: I will come back to that later, and try to pick up a view previous points first.
AlexxcRO wrote: "God shorten their life because of their moral choice.God did not kill all those indonesians because of their moral choice.There is a clear distinction.
Let's make an example :
I am in a specific moment in my life. A man is standing in my way of becoming millionaire . I can choose to kill him and remove the obstacle or choose not to and remain poor. God said not to kill but he also allowed people to not obey his rules(see Adam and Eve example).If i am a free moral agent i can choose whatever i want .If i choose to kill him and God comes and kills me because i choose poorly it means i am not a free moral agent .
People on the time of Noah chose as free moral agents to sin ,but God killed them for their choice suggesting they weren't allowed to.
So how is it then, are we or not moral free agents?"
Response:
(1) I think I can agree that God destroyed the people of the time of the Biblical flood because of their moral choice. The Bible pretty much states it that way. And, yes, we could see this as different from the tsunami in Indonesia, because we don't have a clear statement from God about why this happened. But I don't think we can say that it was not because of their moral choice.
Evil and suffering in our world today has its roots in the moral choice of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the Garden of Eden. Mankind as a whole since then has continued making moral choices that result in "death" (the wages of sin is death). The Indonesians who dies had also sinned. So the root cause of their death was also sin (just like those at the flood), but it does seem that God at the Flood stepped in more directly -- and yet God still steps directly into our world today -
(2) Yes, we are free moral agents. God allows every person freedom of choice as long as they live. He does not take it away from any person while they live. Man is always a free moral agent, but he is not able to choose the results of choosing sin.
(3) So in the flood, the people were free to choose to live evil corrupt lives. But God is the one who chose the results. And one of the rules God established is "the wages of sin is death". It is still the rule today.
(4) But God in his mercy has made a different path available for mankind - believing in Jesus Christ brings life. Just as the time of the ark those who were righteous could choose the safety of the ark.
(5) So it seems to me like God did not take away the free choice of the people at the time of the flood. But He did bring about the results of their sin - which is death. They were allowed to choose: but then God was also allowed to choose to bring the results of sin. Oftentimes God gives mercy and allows more time: which he also did for the people of the flood - but for every person mercy will end sometime - unless the person chooses to put their faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross
Let's make an example :
I am in a specific moment in my life. A man is standing in my way of becoming millionaire . I can choose to kill him and remove the obstacle or choose not to and remain poor. God said not to kill but he also allowed people to not obey his rules(see Adam and Eve example).If i am a free moral agent i can choose whatever i want .If i choose to kill him and God comes and kills me because i choose poorly it means i am not a free moral agent .
People on the time of Noah chose as free moral agents to sin ,but God killed them for their choice suggesting they weren't allowed to.
So how is it then, are we or not moral free agents?"
Response:
(1) I think I can agree that God destroyed the people of the time of the Biblical flood because of their moral choice. The Bible pretty much states it that way. And, yes, we could see this as different from the tsunami in Indonesia, because we don't have a clear statement from God about why this happened. But I don't think we can say that it was not because of their moral choice.
Evil and suffering in our world today has its roots in the moral choice of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the Garden of Eden. Mankind as a whole since then has continued making moral choices that result in "death" (the wages of sin is death). The Indonesians who dies had also sinned. So the root cause of their death was also sin (just like those at the flood), but it does seem that God at the Flood stepped in more directly -- and yet God still steps directly into our world today -
(2) Yes, we are free moral agents. God allows every person freedom of choice as long as they live. He does not take it away from any person while they live. Man is always a free moral agent, but he is not able to choose the results of choosing sin.
(3) So in the flood, the people were free to choose to live evil corrupt lives. But God is the one who chose the results. And one of the rules God established is "the wages of sin is death". It is still the rule today.
(4) But God in his mercy has made a different path available for mankind - believing in Jesus Christ brings life. Just as the time of the ark those who were righteous could choose the safety of the ark.
(5) So it seems to me like God did not take away the free choice of the people at the time of the flood. But He did bring about the results of their sin - which is death. They were allowed to choose: but then God was also allowed to choose to bring the results of sin. Oftentimes God gives mercy and allows more time: which he also did for the people of the flood - but for every person mercy will end sometime - unless the person chooses to put their faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross
W
working4christ2
Guest
My friend, while I agree with your sediment, its expression is just a bit off IMO
What you sate is true but in complete as tp reaching all people. Its a CAN verses WILL deal.
Each of us must endeavor to bring the Good News to a world that seemingly does not have a desire to hear it.
God Bless you,
Patrick
working4christ2
What you sate is true but in complete as tp reaching all people. Its a CAN verses WILL deal.
Each of us must endeavor to bring the Good News to a world that seemingly does not have a desire to hear it.
God Bless you,
Patrick
working4christ2
W
working4christ2
Guest
My friend,
Actually NOT!
Some of those folks who heard Jesus participated in His Crucifixion, other just refused to believe that Jesus IS GOD
John Chapter 6 from t eh Douay Bible with comments from the bible:
" [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.[FONT="][54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.[/FONT][56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?[62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.[FONT="][63] If then you shall see: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.[/FONT][FONT="][64] The flesh profiteth nothing: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.[/FONT][FONT="][64] Are spirit and life: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.[/FONT][66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68]Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.[71] Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? [72] Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.
God Bless you,
Patrick
working4christ2
Actually NOT!
Some of those folks who heard Jesus participated in His Crucifixion, other just refused to believe that Jesus IS GOD
John Chapter 6 from t eh Douay Bible with comments from the bible:
" [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.[FONT="][54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.[/FONT][56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?[62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.[FONT="][63] If then you shall see: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.[/FONT][FONT="][64] The flesh profiteth nothing: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.[/FONT][FONT="][64] Are spirit and life: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.[/FONT][66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68]Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.[71] Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? [72] Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.
God Bless you,
Patrick
working4christ2
W
working4christ2
Guest
My friend, for the sake of dialog,
What do YOU means here by "predestined?"
God Bless you
Patrick
working4christ2
What do YOU means here by "predestined?"
God Bless you
Patrick
working4christ2
Another thought directly related to some current questions here:
Suppose evolution is true and it is true that God does not exist: If this were so, how would we know what is "good, benevolent, and kind"? There is no basis for morality in a completely Godless atheistic worldview. You could not say, "It is wrong for you to kill that person" -- because it might be for their best good rather than them living for another 40 years as a miserable paralyzed "vegetable". Evolution is the "survival of the fittest" and so is it not "good" for the healthy, best people to kill off all those are inferior?
America (and much of the world) still has a core base of morality because of Christianity, but this is rapidly diminishing. Take away Christianity, and you take away any reason for morality.
We really can't discuss what is "good, and fair, and right" without first admitting that God exists and created the world.
Suppose evolution is true and it is true that God does not exist: If this were so, how would we know what is "good, benevolent, and kind"? There is no basis for morality in a completely Godless atheistic worldview. You could not say, "It is wrong for you to kill that person" -- because it might be for their best good rather than them living for another 40 years as a miserable paralyzed "vegetable". Evolution is the "survival of the fittest" and so is it not "good" for the healthy, best people to kill off all those are inferior?
America (and much of the world) still has a core base of morality because of Christianity, but this is rapidly diminishing. Take away Christianity, and you take away any reason for morality.
We really can't discuss what is "good, and fair, and right" without first admitting that God exists and created the world.
W
working4christ2
Guest
GREAT reply
NOT only would one take away "the reason for morality"; in a VERY real sense one would also take away our very reason for existence.
Isaiah 43: verses 7 & 21
God Bless
Patrick
working4christ2
AlexxcjRO: "There is no actual evidence for the Christian model because there is no actual evidence that the stories in the bible are true.
This is not the same when it comes for the evolutionary model.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
The classical proof is the improvement of crops and livestock through artificial selection. Natural selection and other evolutionary theories are also represented in various mathematical proofs, such as the “Price equation”.
Response: No evidence that the stories in the Bible are true??!! That Jesus was an actual person who walked this Earth, that he was crucified, and that he rose from the grave are well documented historical facts. Much has been written on this subject that can easily be found by searching. In the same way that history records that Muhammed was an actual person who was born and died, so history records many of the stories of the Bible. Yes, surely I believe the stories of the miracles and events in the Bible by my faith in God, but the Bible itself is a book with deep and rich historical documentation.
The Biblical stories are documented by manuscripts written down by people who were there and saw what happened. They have been preserved carefully and we still have these records today. If the world came into existence by chance, there was no person there, and we have no written documentation (first hand accounts) of what happened. Yes, it is true that the Genesis 1,2 account of Creation was written by Moses who was not there when it happened. I believe God (who was there) inspired these words and I accept them by faith. But much of what is written in Scripture about historical events has a basis in documented history.
Yes, I will agree that "evolution" has some "proof". What I mean is that yes, plants and animals do change over time. That has been clearly demonstrated and documented. Creation scientists do not dispute that. But what has not been proven is that one "kind" of animal has ever changed into another "kind".
Here is a quote that explains this well:
"However, here is the difference: evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind; therefore, one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.
This is not the same when it comes for the evolutionary model.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
The classical proof is the improvement of crops and livestock through artificial selection. Natural selection and other evolutionary theories are also represented in various mathematical proofs, such as the “Price equation”.
Response: No evidence that the stories in the Bible are true??!! That Jesus was an actual person who walked this Earth, that he was crucified, and that he rose from the grave are well documented historical facts. Much has been written on this subject that can easily be found by searching. In the same way that history records that Muhammed was an actual person who was born and died, so history records many of the stories of the Bible. Yes, surely I believe the stories of the miracles and events in the Bible by my faith in God, but the Bible itself is a book with deep and rich historical documentation.
The Biblical stories are documented by manuscripts written down by people who were there and saw what happened. They have been preserved carefully and we still have these records today. If the world came into existence by chance, there was no person there, and we have no written documentation (first hand accounts) of what happened. Yes, it is true that the Genesis 1,2 account of Creation was written by Moses who was not there when it happened. I believe God (who was there) inspired these words and I accept them by faith. But much of what is written in Scripture about historical events has a basis in documented history.
Yes, I will agree that "evolution" has some "proof". What I mean is that yes, plants and animals do change over time. That has been clearly demonstrated and documented. Creation scientists do not dispute that. But what has not been proven is that one "kind" of animal has ever changed into another "kind".
Here is a quote that explains this well:
"However, here is the difference: evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind; therefore, one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.
Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind—sorting, shuffling, or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the facts of the present; and real science confirms the interpretation."
W
working4christ2
Guest
If I may address POSTER: Alexxcjro
Dear friend,
You're striving mightily to disprove the existence of God, or so it seems to me?
May I suggest that YOU .... GOOGLE ... secular evidence of Jesus as God
Blessings,
Patrck
working4christ2
Dear friend,
You're striving mightily to disprove the existence of God, or so it seems to me?
May I suggest that YOU .... GOOGLE ... secular evidence of Jesus as God
Blessings,
Patrck
working4christ2
AlexxcjRO wrote: "While the Big Bang theory explains how the universe has expanded and cooled since it began, it is quite silent on what “pulled the trigger,” so to speak. We simply don’t know what started the process. How there could be nothing at one moment and an entire baby universe the next? But getting something from nothing is just business as usual for “virtual particles”.
Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
Response: I am not sure that virtual particles really come out of "nothing" . They do appear in a quantum vacuum but they abide by certain laws and rules. If there was absolutely nothing in existence, virtual particles would not just pop up. I find it interesting that even Wikipedia (which is not my first choice for information) says about virtual particles: "but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.
Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
Response: I am not sure that virtual particles really come out of "nothing" . They do appear in a quantum vacuum but they abide by certain laws and rules. If there was absolutely nothing in existence, virtual particles would not just pop up. I find it interesting that even Wikipedia (which is not my first choice for information) says about virtual particles: "but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.
AlexxcjRO wrote: "For an all powerful God there no such thing “he can’t in actuality experience something that has never happened”. And because if God is this perfectly good, benevolent, all loving with infinite wisdom being, he won’t choose an actual fellowship plus billions of people suffering in hell for eternity instead of an only "in his mind" fellowship plus no people suffering in hell for eternity."
Response: Good point, you are right that if God is "all-powerful" he can do anything - that is what all-powerful means. But there are questions that test the limit of any definition of "all-powerfull" -- that is - Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
So I guess I will argue that to the best of my understanding (mere finite human perspective!
God won't do this thing (and it wouldn't make any "good" sense!) you talk about: that is "in his mind" fellowship with people instead of actually creating man with a free will. You can argue that my perspective is not right and is not "good".
But in the same way I will argue that your perspective that a "perfectly good, benevolent " God would not create humans that have free choice (which will cause suffering in hell for eternity) is just that: your finite human perspective. You say: "God won't do this thing"! That is your informed and studied opinion. My informed and studied opinion disagrees with yours. Now what do we do? Is your definition of "good and benevolent" right? Is my definition right? Or, do we use God's and the Bible's definition of "good"? If we use God and the Bible's definition of "good" then we can't dictate the terms of what "good" is?!
Response: Good point, you are right that if God is "all-powerful" he can do anything - that is what all-powerful means. But there are questions that test the limit of any definition of "all-powerfull" -- that is - Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
So I guess I will argue that to the best of my understanding (mere finite human perspective!
God won't do this thing (and it wouldn't make any "good" sense!) you talk about: that is "in his mind" fellowship with people instead of actually creating man with a free will. You can argue that my perspective is not right and is not "good". But in the same way I will argue that your perspective that a "perfectly good, benevolent " God would not create humans that have free choice (which will cause suffering in hell for eternity) is just that: your finite human perspective. You say: "God won't do this thing"! That is your informed and studied opinion. My informed and studied opinion disagrees with yours. Now what do we do? Is your definition of "good and benevolent" right? Is my definition right? Or, do we use God's and the Bible's definition of "good"? If we use God and the Bible's definition of "good" then we can't dictate the terms of what "good" is?!
“If the writer here wanted to say that all of the adults except Noah and his family were corrupt how would he say it?”
He could say: Among all the people that can discern right from wrong, Noah was the only righteous. Simple as that.
AlexxcjRO wrote: "You think that the text clearly implies your point, even if it doesn't say "only" directly while I
think the text clearly implies my point, even if “all people” includes Noah to.
You can’t prove anything for sure, only make assumptions and give your opinion to prove your point. There can be many interpretations of such verses and others in the bible.
It is said the bible it has been written with divine inspiration. If this were true we would not be seeing so much confusion and discordance among Christian beliefs about what certain verse mean"
Response: Ah! We have wrestled this one around in so many angles, I can't remember what all has been said. I think I will leave the issue of Noah go, and just comment on the question about biblical interpretation.
That the Bible was written with divine inspiration and that there are so many different interpretations? Good Question!
God inspired the Bible and so the way I see it there is only one correct interpretation of every verse and passage. There may be many applications, but there is only one interpretation. That men interpret in in so many ways and fight over the interpretations (if you don't believe this - just look at controversial threads on this forum!) only highlights that it is men who are interpreting it.
There are key things that the Bible clearly says that are agreed on by almost all Bible scholars. And, yes there are many other issues and passages that are debated and much discussed.
Note: Of interest to an earlier discussion we had: Genesis 6:20: [SUP] [/SUP]Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
This doesn't give all the specifics, but it does indicate that God would be the one to bring the animals to Noah: he would not have to go get them.
He could say: Among all the people that can discern right from wrong, Noah was the only righteous. Simple as that.
AlexxcjRO wrote: "You think that the text clearly implies your point, even if it doesn't say "only" directly while I
think the text clearly implies my point, even if “all people” includes Noah to.
You can’t prove anything for sure, only make assumptions and give your opinion to prove your point. There can be many interpretations of such verses and others in the bible.
It is said the bible it has been written with divine inspiration. If this were true we would not be seeing so much confusion and discordance among Christian beliefs about what certain verse mean"
Response: Ah! We have wrestled this one around in so many angles, I can't remember what all has been said. I think I will leave the issue of Noah go, and just comment on the question about biblical interpretation.
That the Bible was written with divine inspiration and that there are so many different interpretations? Good Question!
God inspired the Bible and so the way I see it there is only one correct interpretation of every verse and passage. There may be many applications, but there is only one interpretation. That men interpret in in so many ways and fight over the interpretations (if you don't believe this - just look at controversial threads on this forum!) only highlights that it is men who are interpreting it.
There are key things that the Bible clearly says that are agreed on by almost all Bible scholars. And, yes there are many other issues and passages that are debated and much discussed.
Note: Of interest to an earlier discussion we had: Genesis 6:20: [SUP] [/SUP]Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
This doesn't give all the specifics, but it does indicate that God would be the one to bring the animals to Noah: he would not have to go get them.
Some facts first:
Starting in the late sixties and early seventies, astrophysicists noted that several of the basic physical constants must fall within very narrow limits if there is to be the development of intelligent life—at any rate in a way anything like the way in which we think it actually happened.
Several aspects of our Universe, some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life, depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants .
- if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants;
- if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed.
- if the weak and strong nuclear forces had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life of the sort we have, could probably not have developed.
Apparently life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
- there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10–43 sec. after the big bang), would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10 to the sixtieth.
-other examples: the value of cosmological constant, of the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, and the ratio of the mass of the proton to the electron must all be fine-tuned to an incredible degree for the universe to be life-permitting .
Many like you(Chester) see these apparent enormous coincidences as substantiating the Christian claim that the universe has been created by a personal God(Yahweh) who intends that there be intelligent life; they take fine-tuning as offering he material for a good ""Yahweh created the universe" argument. Mostly they argue that the probability of these fine-tuning phenomena on Christianity is much greater than their probability on the chance hypothesis. Here the conclusion is not that probably "Yahweh created the universe" is true, but rather that "Yahweh created the universe" " is much better supported by these phenomena than the chance hypothesis is.
A good objection to fine-tuning arguments is the “many universes” suggestion: perhaps there are very many, even infinitely many different universes or worlds; the cosmological constants take on different values in different worlds, so that very many (perhaps all possible) different sets of such values get exemplified in one world or another. Couldn't there be an eternal cycle of ‘big bangs’, with subsequent expansion to a certain limit and then subsequent contraction to a ‘big crunch’ at which the cosmological values are arbitrarily reset? Alternatively, couldn't it have been that at the Big Bang, there was enormous initial inflation, resulting in many cosmoses with many different settings for the physical constants? In either case it isn't at all surprising that in one or another of the resulting universes, the values of the cosmological constants are such as to be life-permitting. Nor is it at all surprising that the universe in which we find ourselves has life-permitting values; we couldn't exist elsewhere. If so, then the fine-tuning argument is ineffective: the probability of fine-tuning on the many worlds suggestion is at least as large as the probability of fine-tuning on Christianity.
Response: Your many universes idea is intriguing, but to me it doesn't seem to change the issue of the fundamental questions I asked here: "Back up and begin by looking around you at the world as you see it and live in it? Honestly and objectively (scientifically) analyze it? Did it get here by random processes? Do random process produce ever even one living cell? Or does what you see in the world point to a Creator and Designer? I think it clearly points to a designer - hence my starting point is what God (and the Bible) says.”
Starting in the late sixties and early seventies, astrophysicists noted that several of the basic physical constants must fall within very narrow limits if there is to be the development of intelligent life—at any rate in a way anything like the way in which we think it actually happened.
Several aspects of our Universe, some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life, depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants .
- if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants;
- if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed.
- if the weak and strong nuclear forces had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life of the sort we have, could probably not have developed.
Apparently life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
- there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10–43 sec. after the big bang), would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10 to the sixtieth.
-other examples: the value of cosmological constant, of the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, and the ratio of the mass of the proton to the electron must all be fine-tuned to an incredible degree for the universe to be life-permitting .
Many like you(Chester) see these apparent enormous coincidences as substantiating the Christian claim that the universe has been created by a personal God(Yahweh) who intends that there be intelligent life; they take fine-tuning as offering he material for a good ""Yahweh created the universe" argument. Mostly they argue that the probability of these fine-tuning phenomena on Christianity is much greater than their probability on the chance hypothesis. Here the conclusion is not that probably "Yahweh created the universe" is true, but rather that "Yahweh created the universe" " is much better supported by these phenomena than the chance hypothesis is.
A good objection to fine-tuning arguments is the “many universes” suggestion: perhaps there are very many, even infinitely many different universes or worlds; the cosmological constants take on different values in different worlds, so that very many (perhaps all possible) different sets of such values get exemplified in one world or another. Couldn't there be an eternal cycle of ‘big bangs’, with subsequent expansion to a certain limit and then subsequent contraction to a ‘big crunch’ at which the cosmological values are arbitrarily reset? Alternatively, couldn't it have been that at the Big Bang, there was enormous initial inflation, resulting in many cosmoses with many different settings for the physical constants? In either case it isn't at all surprising that in one or another of the resulting universes, the values of the cosmological constants are such as to be life-permitting. Nor is it at all surprising that the universe in which we find ourselves has life-permitting values; we couldn't exist elsewhere. If so, then the fine-tuning argument is ineffective: the probability of fine-tuning on the many worlds suggestion is at least as large as the probability of fine-tuning on Christianity.
Response: Your many universes idea is intriguing, but to me it doesn't seem to change the issue of the fundamental questions I asked here: "Back up and begin by looking around you at the world as you see it and live in it? Honestly and objectively (scientifically) analyze it? Did it get here by random processes? Do random process produce ever even one living cell? Or does what you see in the world point to a Creator and Designer? I think it clearly points to a designer - hence my starting point is what God (and the Bible) says.”
Ah! I think I have caught up except for your question #2 in post 140 about the question of evil.
Can you say anything about my questions in post #120? I wonder if I understood your story and experience with Christianity if it would help me understand your questions better? But don't say anything that you don't want to - this is obviously a very public forum.
This will have to be all for today.
Can you say anything about my questions in post #120? I wonder if I understood your story and experience with Christianity if it would help me understand your questions better? But don't say anything that you don't want to - this is obviously a very public forum.
This will have to be all for today.
-->Chester :" I am not sure I answered everything you asked: Let me know if I missed something critical - and keep asking more - I will keep trying to answer if I can. A question for you: You said you had believed 10 years ago - What is it that caused you to not believe? You have obviously been asking deep questions, but are there other factors that caused you to leave Christ and the church? Or, maybe you never did attend church, or maybe you still do?
....
Can you say anything about my questions in post #120?"
I was born in a protestant Christian family. I believed from the age of 10 years to the age of 20 years when because of several debates about the bible i concluded that the bible and the stories in the bible are not true. One year a ago at the age of 27 i saw an interesting debate with Dr.Craig and i decided to give the bible and its concepts a second chance and give a closer look.I watched tens of debates and read the bible and started to see which one is right about certain things. Analyze and analyze from certain theological perspective : Augustians, Arminians , Universalists, Anihilationists but wasn't convinced by any of these perspective.I thought of asking on forums, might someone give me some new, fresh perspective and insight.
-->Chester: "1. We are going in circles, again by saying that we mere mortals can’t understand God(Yahweh).
Response: I don't think I said that we can't understand God at all, or that we can't begin to understand him.
Q1: Again, if I can’t criticize and analyze God (Yahweh) for me being mere mortal why are you jumping in God defense you being like me mere mortal?
A1: … It is fine for you to criticize and analyze God. But then it should also be fine for me to analyze and criticize your view of God. If you can analyze God and critique him (that is fine!); it is also fine for me to say that your view may be dim and skewed.
Q2: Again, if by your logic we can’t have a debate on this matter why are you debating me on this topic?
A2: … I am fine having a debate on the issue; I was saying that I don't agree with your conclusions - they don't make sense to me (but I admit I am a finite mortal being - but that doesn't mean I am not going to try to understand God)
Q3: Again I ask why does God (Yahweh) want to have a private relationship with us mere mortals that can’t begin to understand him?
A3: … We can begin to understand him. And I think you have some good understandings of who God is and how He operates: I am trying to come to God's defense and suggest his motives and attitudes and characteristics are not completely as you perceive.
Q4: Again I ask why can’t I understand God (Yahweh) if he made me in his image?
A4: …We can begin to understand God to a certain extent. Much about God is revealed in his Word and also some of what He has done in the world. When I talk about us being "mere finite humans" I don't mean to say that we shouldn't try to or can't discuss God: I am trying to explain why our view may just not always be the correct view.
Example: Suppose you suddenly knew everything there is to know about science (what scientists might know in ten thousand years from now). And now you are having a conversation with a scientist of today. I think you would probably say their vision of some things is a bit skewed. "
Conclusion : You and i both can analyze and try to understand God(Yahweh).Both your view of God(Yahweh) and mine can be correct or not.So far you haven't demonstrated that your view is more plausable then mine.
-->Chester:"(1) I think I can agree that God destroyed the people of the time of the Biblical flood because of their moral choice. The Bible pretty much states it that way. And, yes, we could see this as different from the tsunami in Indonesia, because we don't have a clear statement from God about why this happened. But I don't think we can say that it was not because of their moral choice.
Evil and suffering in our world today has its roots in the moral choice of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the Garden of Eden. Mankind as a whole since then has continued making moral choices that result in "death" (the wages of sin is death). The Indonesians who dies had also sinned. So the root cause of their death was also sin (just like those at the flood), but it does seem that God at the Flood stepped in more directly -- and yet God still steps directly into our world today -
(2) Yes, we are free moral agents. God allows every person freedom of choice as long as they live. He does not take it away from any person while they live. Man is always a free moral agent, but he is not able to choose the results of choosing sin.
(3) So in the flood, the people were free to choose to live evil corrupt lives. But God is the one who chose the results. And one of the rules God established is "the wages of sin is death". It is still the rule today.
(4) But God in his mercy has made a different path available for mankind - believing in Jesus Christ brings life. Just as the time of the ark those who were righteous could choose the safety of the ark.
(5) So it seems to me like God did not take away the free choice of the people at the time of the flood. But He did bring about the results of their sin - which is death. They were allowed to choose: but then God was also allowed to choose to bring the results of sin. Oftentimes God gives mercy and allows more time: which he also did for the people of the flood - but for every person mercy will end sometime - unless the person chooses to put their faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross"
The consequences of Adam and Eve sin is that every man born is a mortal human being and has a finite life.
The consequences of people non-believing and asking for forgiveness to God and Jesus is a one way trip to the lake of fire.
The every day sin like lie,murder,theft,rape are already paid by Jesus sacrifice.There is no consequence for these sin because Jesus paid the penalty for those sins.
Why did God shorted their life and judged them during their mortal life and killed them .I thought that the judgement comes only after death after the returning of Jesus in the final judgement. So all the wicked people the are dying because of God intervention will be judged again in the final judgement.
My question is why killing them prematurely when they will anyway be judged in the final judgement after death?
Let's take the sons of Noah for example.They saw that if you sin to much God might kill you.So their free moral
will got restricted somehow because out of fear maybe they will not sin so much again.
Your free moral choices is limited to lets say 100 bad choices even though it might be possible for you to make 300 bad choices in your life if not for God's intervention.After your 100 bad choices your dead.
It's like saying it's ok to make bad choices but not to much.Where do you put the separation line between too much or not.
Is it 100,200,300 or 400 and so on?At the time of Noah there were people that have sinned very differently both in number or gravity.How can God judged them equally and punish them equally ?
But then again why there are evil people that God let's them live till old age and does not punish them by killing them for sinning to much.
Also i think that today there are much more people that are super corrupted,violent and very sinful then at the time of Noah, but we don't see no global intervention.
It does not make any sense why would a infinitely wise and omnibenevolent God do such a thing.
-->Chester:"Another thought directly related to some current questions here:
Suppose evolution is true and it is true that God does not exist: If this were so, how would we know what is "good, benevolent, and kind"? There is no basis for morality in a completely Godless atheistic world view. You could not say, "It is wrong for you to kill that person" -- because it might be for their best good rather than them living for another 40 years as a miserable paralyzed "vegetable". Evolution is the "survival of the fittest" and so is it not "good" for the healthy, best people to kill off all those are inferior?
America (and much of the world) still has a core base of morality because of Christianity, but this is rapidly diminishing. Take away Christianity, and you take away any reason for morality.
We really can't discuss what is "good, and fair, and right" without first admitting that God exists and created the world."
Man i am not saying God does not exist in general.I am saying Yahweh of the bible does not exist in the way he is presented as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving,infinite mercy and wisdom,perfect justice when combined with the bible stories and concepts in the bible.
Morality evolved as the social behavior of the "pack","group","community","tribe" of animals and humans evolved into what we have today.
Scientists say that the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.
They also argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.
Your also wrong about atheism and morality.Countries with more atheism then religion are more peaceful then countries with more religion then atheism.
Global Peace Index Shows Least Religious Countries Among Most Peaceful, Highly Religious Countries Among The Least Peaceful
....
Can you say anything about my questions in post #120?"
I was born in a protestant Christian family. I believed from the age of 10 years to the age of 20 years when because of several debates about the bible i concluded that the bible and the stories in the bible are not true. One year a ago at the age of 27 i saw an interesting debate with Dr.Craig and i decided to give the bible and its concepts a second chance and give a closer look.I watched tens of debates and read the bible and started to see which one is right about certain things. Analyze and analyze from certain theological perspective : Augustians, Arminians , Universalists, Anihilationists but wasn't convinced by any of these perspective.I thought of asking on forums, might someone give me some new, fresh perspective and insight.
-->Chester: "1. We are going in circles, again by saying that we mere mortals can’t understand God(Yahweh).
Response: I don't think I said that we can't understand God at all, or that we can't begin to understand him.
Q1: Again, if I can’t criticize and analyze God (Yahweh) for me being mere mortal why are you jumping in God defense you being like me mere mortal?
A1: … It is fine for you to criticize and analyze God. But then it should also be fine for me to analyze and criticize your view of God. If you can analyze God and critique him (that is fine!); it is also fine for me to say that your view may be dim and skewed.
Q2: Again, if by your logic we can’t have a debate on this matter why are you debating me on this topic?
A2: … I am fine having a debate on the issue; I was saying that I don't agree with your conclusions - they don't make sense to me (but I admit I am a finite mortal being - but that doesn't mean I am not going to try to understand God)
Q3: Again I ask why does God (Yahweh) want to have a private relationship with us mere mortals that can’t begin to understand him?
A3: … We can begin to understand him. And I think you have some good understandings of who God is and how He operates: I am trying to come to God's defense and suggest his motives and attitudes and characteristics are not completely as you perceive.
Q4: Again I ask why can’t I understand God (Yahweh) if he made me in his image?
A4: …We can begin to understand God to a certain extent. Much about God is revealed in his Word and also some of what He has done in the world. When I talk about us being "mere finite humans" I don't mean to say that we shouldn't try to or can't discuss God: I am trying to explain why our view may just not always be the correct view.
Example: Suppose you suddenly knew everything there is to know about science (what scientists might know in ten thousand years from now). And now you are having a conversation with a scientist of today. I think you would probably say their vision of some things is a bit skewed. "
Conclusion : You and i both can analyze and try to understand God(Yahweh).Both your view of God(Yahweh) and mine can be correct or not.So far you haven't demonstrated that your view is more plausable then mine.
-->Chester:"(1) I think I can agree that God destroyed the people of the time of the Biblical flood because of their moral choice. The Bible pretty much states it that way. And, yes, we could see this as different from the tsunami in Indonesia, because we don't have a clear statement from God about why this happened. But I don't think we can say that it was not because of their moral choice.
Evil and suffering in our world today has its roots in the moral choice of Adam and Eve when they sinned in the Garden of Eden. Mankind as a whole since then has continued making moral choices that result in "death" (the wages of sin is death). The Indonesians who dies had also sinned. So the root cause of their death was also sin (just like those at the flood), but it does seem that God at the Flood stepped in more directly -- and yet God still steps directly into our world today -
(2) Yes, we are free moral agents. God allows every person freedom of choice as long as they live. He does not take it away from any person while they live. Man is always a free moral agent, but he is not able to choose the results of choosing sin.
(3) So in the flood, the people were free to choose to live evil corrupt lives. But God is the one who chose the results. And one of the rules God established is "the wages of sin is death". It is still the rule today.
(4) But God in his mercy has made a different path available for mankind - believing in Jesus Christ brings life. Just as the time of the ark those who were righteous could choose the safety of the ark.
(5) So it seems to me like God did not take away the free choice of the people at the time of the flood. But He did bring about the results of their sin - which is death. They were allowed to choose: but then God was also allowed to choose to bring the results of sin. Oftentimes God gives mercy and allows more time: which he also did for the people of the flood - but for every person mercy will end sometime - unless the person chooses to put their faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross"
The consequences of Adam and Eve sin is that every man born is a mortal human being and has a finite life.
The consequences of people non-believing and asking for forgiveness to God and Jesus is a one way trip to the lake of fire.
The every day sin like lie,murder,theft,rape are already paid by Jesus sacrifice.There is no consequence for these sin because Jesus paid the penalty for those sins.
Why did God shorted their life and judged them during their mortal life and killed them .I thought that the judgement comes only after death after the returning of Jesus in the final judgement. So all the wicked people the are dying because of God intervention will be judged again in the final judgement.
My question is why killing them prematurely when they will anyway be judged in the final judgement after death?
Let's take the sons of Noah for example.They saw that if you sin to much God might kill you.So their free moral
will got restricted somehow because out of fear maybe they will not sin so much again.
Your free moral choices is limited to lets say 100 bad choices even though it might be possible for you to make 300 bad choices in your life if not for God's intervention.After your 100 bad choices your dead.
It's like saying it's ok to make bad choices but not to much.Where do you put the separation line between too much or not.
Is it 100,200,300 or 400 and so on?At the time of Noah there were people that have sinned very differently both in number or gravity.How can God judged them equally and punish them equally ?
But then again why there are evil people that God let's them live till old age and does not punish them by killing them for sinning to much.
Also i think that today there are much more people that are super corrupted,violent and very sinful then at the time of Noah, but we don't see no global intervention.
It does not make any sense why would a infinitely wise and omnibenevolent God do such a thing.
-->Chester:"Another thought directly related to some current questions here:
Suppose evolution is true and it is true that God does not exist: If this were so, how would we know what is "good, benevolent, and kind"? There is no basis for morality in a completely Godless atheistic world view. You could not say, "It is wrong for you to kill that person" -- because it might be for their best good rather than them living for another 40 years as a miserable paralyzed "vegetable". Evolution is the "survival of the fittest" and so is it not "good" for the healthy, best people to kill off all those are inferior?
America (and much of the world) still has a core base of morality because of Christianity, but this is rapidly diminishing. Take away Christianity, and you take away any reason for morality.
We really can't discuss what is "good, and fair, and right" without first admitting that God exists and created the world."
Man i am not saying God does not exist in general.I am saying Yahweh of the bible does not exist in the way he is presented as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving,infinite mercy and wisdom,perfect justice when combined with the bible stories and concepts in the bible.
Morality evolved as the social behavior of the "pack","group","community","tribe" of animals and humans evolved into what we have today.
Scientists say that the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.
They also argues that these premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.
Your also wrong about atheism and morality.Countries with more atheism then religion are more peaceful then countries with more religion then atheism.
Global Peace Index Shows Least Religious Countries Among Most Peaceful, Highly Religious Countries Among The Least Peaceful
-->Chester:"Yes, I will agree that "evolution" has some "proof". What I mean is that yes, plants and animals do change over time. That has been clearly demonstrated and documented. Creation scientists do not dispute that. But what has not been proven is that one "kind" of animal has ever changed into another "kind". "
Lets look at some very kinds of animals and see the reseamblance:
-The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) a mammel that lay eggs like reptiles, dinosaurus and birds .
-Amphibians are ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates that typically start out as larvae living in water exactly like many insects do. The young generally undergo metamorphosis from larva with gills like fish have to an adult air-breathing form with lungs like all the reptiles and mammels have.
-The lungfish is a unique animal which has both gills and lungs.
- Whale are a diverse group of fully aquatic placental marine mammals that have lippers, non-existent external ear flaps, a large tail fin, and flat heads with side eyes like fish do.
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans.
- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity).
Are you telling me that is impossible that a fish could have evolved into an amphibian, or an amphibian into a reptile , or a reptile into a mammel , or a dinosaur into a bird?
How do you explain the DNA common shares between different species of animals and between animals and humans?
-->Chester:""Response: I am not sure that virtual particles really come out of "nothing" . They do appear in a quantum vacuum but they abide by certain laws and rules. If there was absolutely nothing in existence, virtual particles would not just pop up. I find it interesting that even Wikipedia (which is not my first choice for information) says about virtual particles: "but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."
It's not just philosophy.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Can laser make them real?
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. (see Scientific American, Oct 9 2006,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/)
Recent methods claim that lasers will be able to make virtual particles real:
"Next-generation lasers will have the power to create matter by capturing ghostly particles that, according to quantum mechanics, permeate seemingly empty space."
The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies that space can never be truly empty. Instead, random fluctuations give birth to a seething cauldron of particles, such as electrons, and their antimatter counterparts, called positrons.
These so-called "virtual particles" normally annihilate one another too quickly for us to notice them. But physicists predicted in the 1930s that a very strong electric field would transform virtual particles into real ones that we can observe. The field pushes them in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another."
(see New Scientist 2010,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19327-lasers-could-make-virtual-particles-real.html)
-->Chester:"So I guess I will argue that to the best of my understanding (mere finite human perspective! God won't do this thing (and it wouldn't make any "good" sense!) you talk about: that is "in his mind" fellowship with people instead of actually creating man with a free will. You can argue that my perspective is not right and is not "good".
But in the same way I will argue that your perspective that a "perfectly good, benevolent " God would not create humans that have free choice (which will cause suffering in hell for eternity) is just that: your finite human perspective. You say: "God won't do this thing"! That is your informed and studied opinion. My informed and studied opinion disagrees with yours. Now what do we do? Is your definition of "good and benevolent" right? Is my definition right? Or, do we use God's and the Bible's definition of "good"? If we use God and the Bible's definition of "good" then we can't dictate the terms of what "good" is?! "
So if God(Yahweh) and the Bible's dictates that murder,rape,slavery is good because anything God(Yahweh) says is by definition good even if my moral compass says this is not k i must bypass and ignore that.
When i look at this bible stories, should i ignore what my moral compass tells me that this is "**** up"?
Kill Brats
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. “(2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
God Kills the Curious
“And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and’ fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?”(1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
Killed by a Lion
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. “(1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)
Killing the Good Samaritan
“The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. “(2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)
-->Chester:"Response: Your many universes idea is intriguing, but to me it doesn't seem to change the issue of the fundamental questions I asked here: "Back up and begin by looking around you at the world as you see it and live in it? Honestly and objectively (scientifically) analyze it? Did it get here by random processes? Do random process produce ever even one living cell? Or does what you see in the world point to a Creator and Designer? I think it clearly points to a designer - hence my starting point is what God (and the Bible) says.”
If we accept the infinite universes argument then the random process is not so impossible anymore ,because for every random possibility we have a possible universe.
-->Chester:"There are key things that the Bible clearly says that are agreed on by almost all Bible scholars. And, yes there are many other issues and passages that are debated and much discussed."
By the contrary Christians debate about key issues like :
Annihilation/Eternal hell,Salvation can be lost/can't be lost,god loves all the same or not(Augustians vs Arminians),
final reconciliation for all with God or not(Augustinians, Arminians vs Christians Universalists),Old testament stories True events /Mythical events.
Lets look at some very kinds of animals and see the reseamblance:
-The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) a mammel that lay eggs like reptiles, dinosaurus and birds .
-Amphibians are ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates that typically start out as larvae living in water exactly like many insects do. The young generally undergo metamorphosis from larva with gills like fish have to an adult air-breathing form with lungs like all the reptiles and mammels have.
-The lungfish is a unique animal which has both gills and lungs.
- Whale are a diverse group of fully aquatic placental marine mammals that have lippers, non-existent external ear flaps, a large tail fin, and flat heads with side eyes like fish do.
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans.
- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity).
Are you telling me that is impossible that a fish could have evolved into an amphibian, or an amphibian into a reptile , or a reptile into a mammel , or a dinosaur into a bird?
How do you explain the DNA common shares between different species of animals and between animals and humans?
-->Chester:""Response: I am not sure that virtual particles really come out of "nothing" . They do appear in a quantum vacuum but they abide by certain laws and rules. If there was absolutely nothing in existence, virtual particles would not just pop up. I find it interesting that even Wikipedia (which is not my first choice for information) says about virtual particles: "but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."
It's not just philosophy.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Can laser make them real?
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. (see Scientific American, Oct 9 2006,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/)
Recent methods claim that lasers will be able to make virtual particles real:
"Next-generation lasers will have the power to create matter by capturing ghostly particles that, according to quantum mechanics, permeate seemingly empty space."
The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics implies that space can never be truly empty. Instead, random fluctuations give birth to a seething cauldron of particles, such as electrons, and their antimatter counterparts, called positrons.
These so-called "virtual particles" normally annihilate one another too quickly for us to notice them. But physicists predicted in the 1930s that a very strong electric field would transform virtual particles into real ones that we can observe. The field pushes them in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another."
(see New Scientist 2010,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19327-lasers-could-make-virtual-particles-real.html)
-->Chester:"So I guess I will argue that to the best of my understanding (mere finite human perspective! God won't do this thing (and it wouldn't make any "good" sense!) you talk about: that is "in his mind" fellowship with people instead of actually creating man with a free will. You can argue that my perspective is not right and is not "good".
But in the same way I will argue that your perspective that a "perfectly good, benevolent " God would not create humans that have free choice (which will cause suffering in hell for eternity) is just that: your finite human perspective. You say: "God won't do this thing"! That is your informed and studied opinion. My informed and studied opinion disagrees with yours. Now what do we do? Is your definition of "good and benevolent" right? Is my definition right? Or, do we use God's and the Bible's definition of "good"? If we use God and the Bible's definition of "good" then we can't dictate the terms of what "good" is?! "
So if God(Yahweh) and the Bible's dictates that murder,rape,slavery is good because anything God(Yahweh) says is by definition good even if my moral compass says this is not k i must bypass and ignore that.
When i look at this bible stories, should i ignore what my moral compass tells me that this is "**** up"?
Kill Brats
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. “(2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
God Kills the Curious
“And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and’ fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?”(1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
Killed by a Lion
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. “(1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)
Killing the Good Samaritan
“The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. “(2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)
-->Chester:"Response: Your many universes idea is intriguing, but to me it doesn't seem to change the issue of the fundamental questions I asked here: "Back up and begin by looking around you at the world as you see it and live in it? Honestly and objectively (scientifically) analyze it? Did it get here by random processes? Do random process produce ever even one living cell? Or does what you see in the world point to a Creator and Designer? I think it clearly points to a designer - hence my starting point is what God (and the Bible) says.”
If we accept the infinite universes argument then the random process is not so impossible anymore ,because for every random possibility we have a possible universe.
-->Chester:"There are key things that the Bible clearly says that are agreed on by almost all Bible scholars. And, yes there are many other issues and passages that are debated and much discussed."
By the contrary Christians debate about key issues like :
Annihilation/Eternal hell,Salvation can be lost/can't be lost,god loves all the same or not(Augustians vs Arminians),
final reconciliation for all with God or not(Augustinians, Arminians vs Christians Universalists),Old testament stories True events /Mythical events.
AlexxcjRO wrote:
"2. Let’s look more closely to the problem of evil:
-God (Yahweh) is this this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being.
-God (Yahweh) has given man free moral will.
Because God gave us free moral will he won’t stop moral evil from happening.
Q1: But why is God (Yahweh) not stopping non-moral, natural evils being omnipotent and omnibenevolent? What’s the point for all this unnecessary evil?
Q2: Why is so important for God that man has free will?
A2: God wanted so bad to have companionship with creatures that have free moral will and be worshiped, adored by creatures that have free moral will for infinity that he ignored the fact that by giving into his desire meant that the majority of the creatures he created will end up suffering for eternity in the lake of fire because of the free moral will.
Q3: Again, because God(Yahweh) is omnipotent could have experienced companionship with creatures that have free moral will and be worshiped, adored by creatures that have free moral will in his mind, why did he created the world and man when by not doing this could avoid the infinite suffering of all the creatures going in the lake of fire?
A3: …
Q4: How can you know for sure that God (Yahweh) is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being and not an omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac God that pretends to be the first kind so he can get some of his creatures to worship him and feed his ego while in the same time feed his evil nature by torturing billions of his creatures in the lake of fire?
A4: You can’t.
Q5: If people through suffering evolve spiritually and on a personal level (they became more wise and better morally) and somehow by this they find and acknowledge the true God (Yahweh), then how come that the people in the lake of fire, through infinite suffering never evolve spiritually and on a personal level and they never find and/or acknowledge the true God (Yahweh)?
A5: That is impossible to happen for billions of people for eternity.
Conclusion: The bible stories and the way the world is today points to God (Yahweh) being this omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac being indifferent to the evil and suffering he so careful created and orchestrated."
Response: Your question here is one of the deepest, most difficult issues for anyone to face and answer: whether it be Christian, another faith, or atheistic. The problem of pain and suffering and how a person can respond to it and yet live meaningfully in the world today is a bottom-line issue. As you probably well know, most Christians have not thought about this question much: Probably your question is often brushed aside and goes unanswered.
I have thought about this issue at least to a certain length, but my conclusions may not always make sense to you. Every person has different angles and approaches. I will write a few thoughts here, but this issue is so deep and wide that a few sentences or paragraphs cannot do justice to the subject. I give you the following suggestions for more reading: two articles:
https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/god-is-good/gods-biggest-problem
https://answersingenesis.org/suffering/why-us/
(I think these articles give a good start, but I don't think their approach completely answers your angle of thinking)
Probably the best suggestion I have for you is the book The Problem of Pain -by C. S. Lewis. He deals with this issue in depth, honestly, and does well in giving a clear, fair answer to the question. It is the best resource I can recommend. I know it will take some time to read, but in your circumstance, I think you will find that his intellect, approach, and thinking will be the best answer to your question.
A few of my thoughts:
(1) Our modern Western definition of "good" is a shallow one. To say that God is "good" by our current Western definition would be demeaning God.
(2) The biggest key for me is understanding that my God is not passive and uninvolved: He took the initiative to make a way of escape from death and hell. He came to Earth and suffered as an innocent victim. He does not stand distant and uninvolved to suffering: He weeps and His heart is torn by the suffering and pain of the Wicked and of the suffering in hell. God is not "indifferent" to the suffering of mankind. He himself suffered - that is not indifference!
(3) Oh, that I could tell you the joy and depth and meaning of a relationship with Jesus! It is all that a person could ever dream or long for! I think often of the words of Peter - "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we know and are sure that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"
(4) In light of the depth and beauty and joy of a relationship with God - this is what man was created for - God longs for all mankind to come to Him - He made the pathway free - no cost! This type of relationship borne of free choice cannot exist for a mortal man outside of free choice. God offers us something beyond our dreams - and beyond the relationship on this Earth is eternity in heaven.
(5) Quote: "How can you know for sure that God (Yahweh) is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being and not an omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac God that pretends to be the first kind so he can get some of his creatures to worship him and feed his ego while in the same time feed his evil nature by torturing billions of his creatures in the lake of fire?
A4: You can’t"
Response: I think I understand your question - at least in part. You leave out of your question the key part of the Bible: God proved his character by his actions: His innocent death and suffering. Your approach also assumes you know what is "good" and what is "evil and cruel". Your focus in on the punishment when man chooses his own way: and this punishment is real and severe! but this is man's choice when he follows evil and the perfect character of God demands death as a result of sin. But God in his love and goodness made a way even when man sinned! And when you understand the depth and riches and joy of a relationship with God now and in all eternity in heaven -- then all the pain and suffering is put into perspective. Is it easy? NO! But when rightly understood, there is really no other option for a good God and just God. But this "good" is not even nearly what our modern Western view perceives.
I am really afraid the paragraph does not put into words well what I want to say: Take it and understand as best you can -- the book by C.S. Lewis will do much better.
I will be glad to try to answer more on this issue if there is something specific question yet . . .
"2. Let’s look more closely to the problem of evil:
-God (Yahweh) is this this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being.
-God (Yahweh) has given man free moral will.
Because God gave us free moral will he won’t stop moral evil from happening.
Q1: But why is God (Yahweh) not stopping non-moral, natural evils being omnipotent and omnibenevolent? What’s the point for all this unnecessary evil?
Q2: Why is so important for God that man has free will?
A2: God wanted so bad to have companionship with creatures that have free moral will and be worshiped, adored by creatures that have free moral will for infinity that he ignored the fact that by giving into his desire meant that the majority of the creatures he created will end up suffering for eternity in the lake of fire because of the free moral will.
Q3: Again, because God(Yahweh) is omnipotent could have experienced companionship with creatures that have free moral will and be worshiped, adored by creatures that have free moral will in his mind, why did he created the world and man when by not doing this could avoid the infinite suffering of all the creatures going in the lake of fire?
A3: …
Q4: How can you know for sure that God (Yahweh) is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being and not an omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac God that pretends to be the first kind so he can get some of his creatures to worship him and feed his ego while in the same time feed his evil nature by torturing billions of his creatures in the lake of fire?
A4: You can’t.
Q5: If people through suffering evolve spiritually and on a personal level (they became more wise and better morally) and somehow by this they find and acknowledge the true God (Yahweh), then how come that the people in the lake of fire, through infinite suffering never evolve spiritually and on a personal level and they never find and/or acknowledge the true God (Yahweh)?
A5: That is impossible to happen for billions of people for eternity.
Conclusion: The bible stories and the way the world is today points to God (Yahweh) being this omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac being indifferent to the evil and suffering he so careful created and orchestrated."
Response: Your question here is one of the deepest, most difficult issues for anyone to face and answer: whether it be Christian, another faith, or atheistic. The problem of pain and suffering and how a person can respond to it and yet live meaningfully in the world today is a bottom-line issue. As you probably well know, most Christians have not thought about this question much: Probably your question is often brushed aside and goes unanswered.
I have thought about this issue at least to a certain length, but my conclusions may not always make sense to you. Every person has different angles and approaches. I will write a few thoughts here, but this issue is so deep and wide that a few sentences or paragraphs cannot do justice to the subject. I give you the following suggestions for more reading: two articles:
https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/god-is-good/gods-biggest-problem
https://answersingenesis.org/suffering/why-us/
(I think these articles give a good start, but I don't think their approach completely answers your angle of thinking)
Probably the best suggestion I have for you is the book The Problem of Pain -by C. S. Lewis. He deals with this issue in depth, honestly, and does well in giving a clear, fair answer to the question. It is the best resource I can recommend. I know it will take some time to read, but in your circumstance, I think you will find that his intellect, approach, and thinking will be the best answer to your question.
A few of my thoughts:
(1) Our modern Western definition of "good" is a shallow one. To say that God is "good" by our current Western definition would be demeaning God.
(2) The biggest key for me is understanding that my God is not passive and uninvolved: He took the initiative to make a way of escape from death and hell. He came to Earth and suffered as an innocent victim. He does not stand distant and uninvolved to suffering: He weeps and His heart is torn by the suffering and pain of the Wicked and of the suffering in hell. God is not "indifferent" to the suffering of mankind. He himself suffered - that is not indifference!
(3) Oh, that I could tell you the joy and depth and meaning of a relationship with Jesus! It is all that a person could ever dream or long for! I think often of the words of Peter - "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we know and are sure that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"
(4) In light of the depth and beauty and joy of a relationship with God - this is what man was created for - God longs for all mankind to come to Him - He made the pathway free - no cost! This type of relationship borne of free choice cannot exist for a mortal man outside of free choice. God offers us something beyond our dreams - and beyond the relationship on this Earth is eternity in heaven.
(5) Quote: "How can you know for sure that God (Yahweh) is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all loving, perfect good being and not an omnipotent, evil, cruel, narcissist, megalomaniac God that pretends to be the first kind so he can get some of his creatures to worship him and feed his ego while in the same time feed his evil nature by torturing billions of his creatures in the lake of fire?
A4: You can’t"
Response: I think I understand your question - at least in part. You leave out of your question the key part of the Bible: God proved his character by his actions: His innocent death and suffering. Your approach also assumes you know what is "good" and what is "evil and cruel". Your focus in on the punishment when man chooses his own way: and this punishment is real and severe! but this is man's choice when he follows evil and the perfect character of God demands death as a result of sin. But God in his love and goodness made a way even when man sinned! And when you understand the depth and riches and joy of a relationship with God now and in all eternity in heaven -- then all the pain and suffering is put into perspective. Is it easy? NO! But when rightly understood, there is really no other option for a good God and just God. But this "good" is not even nearly what our modern Western view perceives.
I am really afraid the paragraph does not put into words well what I want to say: Take it and understand as best you can -- the book by C.S. Lewis will do much better.
I will be glad to try to answer more on this issue if there is something specific question yet . . .