Questions about the bible !

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: "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."

Response: That is OK if in your eyes I haven't demonstrated that my view is more plausible than your view. I will keep trying! I am a little confused what "your view" is?

AlexxcjRO wrote: "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"

Response: Well you will certainly find out that I won't fit neatly into any of the theological perspectives above. I am mostly a self-educated Christian and have come to my conclusions from my own study of the Bible, from reading good books, and from listening to Biblical preaching and asking questions. Most of the answers I am giving you are just what "pops out" of my mind and heart (and what the Spirit of God gives me -- but I don't like to say it that way - because anyone can say - "God told me that!"). I have watched a few debates and have found them helpful to a certain extent, but there is usually much deeper and more satisfying answers in looking at the broader, deeper story of the universe (God's story) rather than the narrow confines of particular issues. Though surely every issue is a part of the bigger story!

AlexxcjRO wrote: "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, tetrapodvertebrates 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 placentalmarine 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?"

Response: The issue is: what is your beginning bias or view? I believe that the Bible is true and that God created all of the "kinds" of animals. So it is not a problem at all that he created a platypus that has characteristics of reptiles and mammals. That different kinds of animals have similarities in genetics is not surprising. They all have the same Creator. It only points to a common designer.

If you begin with a bias or view that God did not create the universe and that it came about by evolution, then you will interpret the data to fit your view.

To evaluate the evidence we need to ask: Is there proof that one "kind" of animal has changed into another "kind"? Is there proof the chimpanzee has changed into a human? Is there proof the lungfish is a bridge between fish and mammals? If you ask: Is it possible? - well anything is possible if you believe in an almighty God like I believe in! But I ask then - what did God say? and I go to Genesis 1 - and God says, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind" (Gen 1:24)

Is it possible that an Almighty God created all these "kinds" with the exact similarities that you mention above? Yes, it is very possible. The Bible (a book that has much documented prophecy written years before it happened exactly as written) says so.

Is it possible that all of these kinds began many billion years ago as a single living cell that eventually changed and grew and split and morphed and now we have what we have? I guess it's possible - but surely not very plausible or probable in my view!

I am sitting in a room with much sophisticated equipment and décor: a computer, a phone, a clock, a copier, speakers, and more. All of these were designed by someone - they did not come about by random chance! But by far (by very, very far!) the most sophisticated and complicated "machine" in this room is myself! Which makes more sense - that there was a designer that made me? Or that I came about by random chance?

The laws of physics are that systems go from order to disorder; from ordered to random. For all that we see to come about as random chance -- !!!!!!! ????

I think that when you look objectively at the evidence it points to a Designer.

Here is a link to a more technical approach to the issue of chimpanzees and humans:

https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...uman-dna-similarity-what-does-it-really-mean/

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester :"Response: The issue is: what is your beginning bias or view? I believe that the Bible is true and that God created all of the "kinds" of animals. So it is not a problem at all that he created a platypus that has characteristics of reptiles and mammals. That different kinds of animals have similarities in genetics is not surprising. They all have the same Creator. It only points to a common designer.
If you begin with a bias or view that God did not create the universe and that it came about by evolution, then you will interpret the data to fit your view.
To evaluate the evidence we need to ask: Is there proof that one "kind" of animal has changed into another "kind"? Is there proof the chimpanzee has changed into a human? Is there proof the lungfish is a bridge between fish and mammals? If you ask: Is it possible? - well anything is possible if you believe in an almighty God like I believe in! But I ask then - what did God say? and I go to Genesis 1 - and God says, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind" (Gen 1:24)
Is it possible that an Almighty God created all these "kinds" with the exact similarities that you mention above? Yes, it is very possible. The Bible (a book that has much documented prophecy written years before it happened exactly as written) says so.
Is it possible that all of these kinds began many billion years ago as a single living cell that eventually changed and grew and split and morphed and now we have what we have? I guess it's possible - but surely not very plausible or probable in my view!
I am sitting in a room with much sophisticated equipment and décor: a computer, a phone, a clock, a copier, speakers, and more. All of these were designed by someone - they did not come about by random chance! But by far (by very, very far!) the most sophisticated and complicated "machine" in this room is myself! Which makes more sense - that there was a designer that made me? Or that I came about by random chance?
The laws of physics are that systems go from order to disorder; from ordered to random. For all that we see to come about as random chance -- !!!!!!! ????
I think that when you look objectively at the evidence it points to a Designer.
Here is a link to a more technical approach to the issue of chimpanzees and humans:"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetic...t-really-mean/ "


The article you send me says God (Yahweh) made Adam and Eve ~ 4,000 BC (6,000 years ago).
But what about the ancient independent civilizations, prehistoric people and all the sub-species humans that existed before 4,000 BCE (6,000years ago)?
The earliest emergence of civilizations is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, culminating in the relatively rapid process of Urban Revolution and state formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite. The earlier neolithic technology and lifestyle was established first in the Middle East (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE (11,000years ago)), and later in the Yangtze and Yellow river basins in China (for example the Pengtoushan culture from 7,500 BCE (9,500years ago)), and later spread. Similar pre-civilised "neolithic revolutions" also began independently from 7,000 BCE (9,000 years ago) in such places as the Norte Chico civilization in Peru and Mesoamerica. These were among the six civilizations worldwide that arose independently.
The Chalcolithic period or Copper Age, also known as the Eneolithic is a phase of the Bronze Age before it was discovered that adding tin to copper formed the harder bronze. The Copper Age was originally defined as a transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. However, because it is characterized by the use of metals, the Copper Age is considered a part of the Bronze Age rather than the Stone Age.The archaeological site of Belovode on the Rudnik mountain in Serbia contains the world's oldest securely dated evidence of copper smelting at high temperature, from 5,000 BCE (7000 years ago).
The very earliest human artifacts showing evidence of workmanship with an artistic purpose are the subject of some debate; it is clear that such workmanship existed by 40,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic era, however there is evidence of artistic activity dating as far back as 500,000 years ago performed by Homo erectus. From the Upper Palaeolithic through the Mesolithic, cave paintings and portable art such as figurines and beads predominated, with decorative figured workings also seen on some utilitarian objects. In the Neolithic evidence of early pottery appeared, as did sculpture and the construction of megaliths. Early rock art also first appeared in the Neolithic.
Cave paintings are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe. The exact purpose of the Paleolithic cave paintings is not known. Evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. They are also often located in areas of caves that are not easily accessible. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe a religious or ceremonial purpose to them. The paintings are remarkably similar around the world, with animals being common subjects that give the most impressive images. Humans mainly appear as images of hands, mostly hand stencils made by blowing pigment on a hand held to the wall.
Homo is the genus that comprises the species Homo sapiens, which includes modern humans, as well as several extinct species classified as ancestral to or closely related to modern humans—as for examples Homo habilis and Homo neanderthalensis. The genus is about 2.8 million years old; it first appeared as its earliest species Homo habilis, which emerged from the genus Australopithecus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of Pan, the chimpanzees. Taxonomically, Homo is the only genus assigned to the subtribe Hominina which, with the subtribes Australopithecina and Panina, comprise the tribe Hominini. All species of the genus Homo plus those species of the australopithecines that arose after the split from Pan are called hominins.
Homo erectus appeared about two million years ago in East Africa (where it is dubbed Homo ergaster) and, in several early migrations, it spread throughout Africa and Eurasia. It was likely the first hominin to live in a hunter-gatherer society and to control fire. An adaptive and successful species, Homo erectus persisted for almost 2 million years before suddenly becoming extinct about 70,000 years ago (0.07 Ma)—perhaps a casualty of the Toba super-eruption catastrophe.
Homo sapiens sapiens, or anatomically modern humans, emerged about 200,000 years ago (0.2 Ma) in East Africa (see Omo remains). There is division among scholars as to when H. s. sapiens became behaviorally modern; the debate is: modern behavior developed 1) simultaneously with anatomical development, or 2) separately, and was complete by 50,000 years ago (see Modern human behavior). Homo sapiens sapiens is the only surviving species and subspecies of the genus Homo; all others have become extinct.
Neanderthals were a species or subspecies of human in the genus Homo which became extinct between 40,000 and 28,000 years ago. They were closely related to modern humans, having DNA over 99.5% the same. Remains left by Neanderthals include bone and stone tools, which are found in Eurasia, from Western Europe to Central, Northern, and Western Asia. Neanderthals are generally classified by paleontologists as the species Homo neanderthalensis, having separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago, or alternatively as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).
Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in the Engis Caves (the partial skull dubbed Engis 2) , in what is now Belgium (1829) by Philippe-Charles Schmerling and in Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar, dubbed Gibraltar 1 (1848), both prior to the type specimen discovery in a limestone quarry of the Neander Valley in Erkrath near Düsseldorf in August 1856, three years before Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published.
The type specimen, dubbed Neanderthal 1, consisted of a skull cap, two femora, three bones from the right arm, two from the left arm, part of the left ilium, fragments of a scapula, and ribs. The workers who recovered this material originally thought it to be the remains of a bear. They gave the material to amateur naturalist Johann Carl Fuhlrott, who turned the fossils over to anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen.
To date, the bones of over 400 Neanderthals have been found.

Chester :"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:
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."

The problem of pain leads Christians to says: God (Yahweh) loves us and he is not just kind with us, and because of this he allows suffering so we turn away our focus from the world and through suffering to evolved spiritually and morally, so that we find and acknowledge the true God (Yahweh), Jesus and in the end experience true happiness, joy and companionship with God (Yahweh) in Heaven for eternity.
The problem of hell and the free will concept leads C.S. Lewis and Dr. Craig to emphasize the role that free will plays in determining one's eternal destiny in heaven or hell; they also accept the so-called libertarian understanding of free will, according to which freedom and determinism are incompatible, because not even an omnipotent being can causally determine a genuinely free choice. If some person should freely act wrongly—or worse yet, freely reject God's grace then it was not within God's power to induce this person to have freely acted otherwise. So our human free choices, particularly the bad ones, are obstacles that God must work around as he tries to bring his loving purposes to fruition. And this may suggest the further possibility that, with respect to some free persons, God cannot both preserve their freedom in relation to him and prevent them from freely rejecting him forever. (As C. S. Lewis put it: “I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside”.)


(1): Some persons will, despite God's best efforts to save them, freely and irrevocably reject God and thus separate themselves from him forever.


All seems fine and beautiful at the first look. But let me point some important observations and objections:
However the logical possibility of (1) being true is compatible with its being false and with the very real possibility that the infinitely resourceful God will successfully win over all sinners in the end. It is even compatible with the epistemic certainty—based upon revelation, for example—that no one will successfully resist God's salvific will forever. So a plausible free will theodicy of the lake of fire requires more than the bare logical possibility that (1) is true.
For consider this:
- it is logically possible that a fair coin would never land heads up, not even once in a trillion tosses, such an eventuality is so incredibly improbable and so close to an impossibility that no one need fear it actually happening.
- Nor would (1) be any less improbable than that if an argument of Eric Reitan's should turn out to be correct. In working with a sinner S (shattering S's illusions and correcting S's ignorance), God could presumably bring S to a point, just short of actually determining S's choice, where S would see the choice between horror and bliss with such clarity that the probability of S repenting and submitting to God would be extremely high. Or, if you prefer, drop the probability to .5. Over an indefinitely long period of time, S would still have an indefinitely large number of opportunities to repent; and so, according to Reitan, the assumption that sinners retain their libertarian freedom forever (as the bible says explicitly) and that an omnipotent God will not eventually win over all sinners (and do so without causally determining their choices) is as impossible as that a coin will not land heads up in a trillion tosses. The impossible multiplies infinitely when we have billions of coins (sinners) and infinite tosses(oportunities).

You don’t seem to like random chance when it comes to how our universe and life appeared (even when I pointed a good argument, that of parallel universe, infinite alternative universes theory) but you seem to embrace it when it comes to the impossibility of billions of people to freely choose forever the torment of the lake of fire because they never will find and/or acknowledge the true God (Yahweh), they never repent, ask him for forgiveness; even though this omnipotent being tries also forever with all his might to reconcile with all of them.

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: "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."

Response: How would it be possible for God to make it "fair" by this kind of standard? He would need to be sure that every person born into the world would have the not only the same number of opportunities to repent, but have the same intensity of request to repent each time, and each person would have to be born and raised in exactly the same environment with the same surrounding culture - everything exactly the same! For example: everyone would have to be the same height, or the short person could complain that God gave me a harder life than he gave the other person, etc.

Being a perfectly holy God, His standards are: one sin and you are guilty of eternal death! So it is His mercy that allows sinners opportunity to repent. It is not "fair (just)" that the sinner is allowed to live for one second beyond his first sin. Your sentiment is that God should not intervene into people's lives and "kill" them before they die (their time to die). Your statement, "I thought that the judgement comes only after death after the returning of Jesus in the final judgement." is really exactly right. So the judgement of the those who died in the flood was "after their death".

In the holiness of God, the separation line for too much sin is this: only one sin and you are guilty of death. So if you are not killed instantly on the first sin, it is the mercy of God! Furthermore, beyond the mercy of not killing you, God has Himself entered into our world, suffered, and died, so that through His death we have a way of escape from the penalty of death.

You are right that probably the world is filled with people more wicked than at the time of Noah -- and for now God's mercy is still ongoing, but God is going to again judge the world - this time by fire - read Revelation!.



AlexxcjRO wrote: "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"



Response: The link you gave is interesting. I looked at the top 5 peaceful countries. Four out of those five (Japan being the exception) had at least half or more of the population was part of either the Catholic or Protestant church. So, though the country may not be "religious" yet they seem to have Christian roots. Most of the list of the bottom ten were Islamic countries with the notable exception of Israel (which is no surprise!).

I will readily admit that much of the bloodshed over the last century has come at the hands of "Christian" nations. WW I, WWII were mostly fought by European "Christian" nations. I think that is a tragedy, and a misunderstanding of the way of Christ. For myself, I have chosen what I think is the way of Christ - I will not fight in any war for any country - that is - I will not kill a fellow human being.

It is a documented and well accepted fact that Hitler's view that the German race was "superior" was a key factor in his killing of Jews, Gypsies, and others who had not evolved as far as the Aryan race.

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester : “Being a perfectly holy God, His standards are: one sin and you are guilty of eternal death!”
By your logic every man that lived on Earth and did not repent is equally guilty in the eyes of God (Yahweh) no matter he sinned only once (told a single lie) or more (killed, raped, stole).

Let’s take a random super sinner(killed, raped, stole) from Sodom and Gomorrah, who was killed by God (Yahweh) and called him S1 and another random “light” sinner (told a single lie) that was not from Sodom and Gomorrah, who was not killed by God (Yahweh) and called him S2. Both had not repented for their sins at the moment God (Yahweh) decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah
By the same logic S1 and S2 are equally guilty in the eyes of God (Yahweh).
Q: If both equally guilty how come one was spared and one not?
A: No matter how you spin this does not make any sense.

Chester : “Being a perfectly holy God, His standards are: one sin and you are guilty of eternal death! So it is His mercy that allows sinners opportunity to repent. It is not "fair (just)" that the sinner is allowed to live for one second beyond his first sin. Your sentiment is that God should not intervene into people's lives and "kill" them before they die (their time to die). Your statement, "I thought that the judgment comes only after death after the returning of Jesus in the final judgment." is really exactly right. So the judgment of those who died in the flood was "after their death". “

1. Chester God (Yahweh) already judged them as being guilty when he decided to killed them. Again I ask why judged them then, when there is the final judgment anyway? Seems pointless to destroy all creation for some guilty sinners that God (Yahweh) would have judged anyway the final judgment.
2. Chester the consequence of eternal death is not because of sins like theft, rape, murder, dishonesty alone but the sin of not believing in God (Yahweh) and Jesus, of not accepting you’re a sinner, repenting and asking for forgiveness to God (Yahweh) and Jesus.
We are going to the lake of fire for not repenting to Yahweh.
The following question rises:
Q: If not everybody has the same number of opportunities to repent why judge them equally and punish them equally, is it fair?
A: Once you said that not all have the same opportunities, no matter how you spin it is not fair and just.

Conclusion: Because he does not give the same chance to repent to everybody it means he is either not omnipotent or not all loving, period.

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: 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.

Response: "If we accept the infinite universes argument" - but how do we get there? What is the probability of getting one universe into existence out of nothing with no God to do it? Or, what is the probability that out of there being absolutely nothing anywhere that one universe came into existence? I would say very, very, very small probability. Next, what would be the probability of having ten universes come into being? the original probability times ten! Then a billion universes coming into existence? a billion times the original probability! Maybe you think the first universe splits in two and then those two split into four, etc. But even so, what is the probablility of that happening?

I don't think the multiple universes idea enhances the probability: it only makes it less . . .

So if I get into my laboratory and have all of the right amino acids and everything needed to make "a single living cell" -- what is the probability I can do it? Very, very, small . . .

Now take me out of the picture and just put the right ingredients into the lab - will "life" come out? well, uh, . . . ?

Now take the right ingredients out of the lab and throw them randomly out into the universe? will "life" come out? ??

Back up another step - we need to get the right ingredients first - how did they come about?

I think I will stick with the idea that a Designer put the universe together . . .


AlexxcjRO wrote: "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."

Response: I am of the "old school" that believes all of the Bible is the inspired Word of God -- I take everything in the Bible just as it is written. So when I say "the key things that the Bible says are agreed on by almost all Bible scholars" I am talking about the scholars who believe in the complete inspiration of the Bible. Within this group it is (mostly) agreed that there is a Trinity, Jesus was born of a virgin, salvation is by grace through faith, there is a literal heaven and hell, etc.

So of the issues you listed above those in this group of Bible scholars agree (almost! completely on (1) Old testament stories are true events and (2) only believers are finally reconciled with God

These issues there is some differences: (1) eternal hell or annihilation (7'th Day Adventists and a few others) (2) salvation can be lost, and (3) God loves all the same (Numbers 2 and 3 are characteristic of the ongoing Calvinistic vs. Arminian debate).

This will be all I can do for today. I am working on a response for those texts about God "killing" the curious, etc.

I agree with you that Christians sure are split up and fight a lot! I am wanting to get you on board and then we can get all this straightened out! Your candor and logic is what is needed!

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester : “I don't think the multiple universes idea enhances the probability: it only makes it less . . . “
Man you don’t understand how probability works and what parallel universe means. When you have an infinite possible combinations of values for certain constants the probability that one of this combination of values (the one find in our universe) exists is 100%.
Please read this again:
Many Christians 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. “


Chester : “I think I will stick with the idea that a Designer put the universe together . . .”
Man your not just assuming that there is a designer, your also assuming the designer is Yahweh.
Also I didn’t said that there is not a designer at all, just that the designer is not Yahweh, as much that is not Allah, Zamolxis, Ra or Zeus and that the arguments brought to support the claim are weak (example: fine tuning argument).
Let’s assume there is a designer.
Also i make the following scenario again:
-I say maybe there are multiple universes independent of each other and in one of these universes: a billion old civilization has the technology to create a universe outside of their own. In one of their successful experiments they create our universe.
-You say Yahweh created the universe.
You may ask: Who created their universe? and go in infinite regress with the question.
-My answer: their universe is a stable, eternal universe that existed infinitely in the past and will in the future.
The same applies to God: Who created him? and again go in infinite regress with the question.
-Your answer: God has existed infinitely in the past and will in the future.
Also 4 billion years some inhabitants of this billion old civilization ago come to our universe and through an experiment create the primordial life on Earth, after from which evolved to what we have today.
Q: Is your theory more plausible, or probable then mine at this moment?
A: I am 100% that none of them are more plausible, or probable then the other at this moment.
Q: Do you have more evidence to support their claim then I have at this moment?
A: I am 100% you don’t have more as i am 100% i don't have more at this moment.
Q: How can you know for sure that Yahweh created the universe, life and not my aliens since either you or me did not witness none of the events?
A: I am 100% you don’t know for sure as i am 100% i don't know for sure.

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester :"What is the probability of getting one universe into existence out of nothing with no God to do it?"
Why do keep insisting with the impossibility of "getting one universe into existence out of nothing with no God to do it" when i showed you the popping in and out of existence is something normal for virtual particle. Please read this again:
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)

 

[trofimus]

Chester :"What is the probability of getting one universe into existence out of nothing with no God to do it?"
Why do keep insisting with the impossibility of "getting one universe into existence out of nothing with no God to do it" when i showed you the popping in and out of existence is something normal for virtual particle. Please read this again:
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)

If laser created by man can make a particle from fluctuations, to create whole universe needed a laser created by God.

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: "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)"


Response: II Kings 2:23,24: I think this story may sometimes be misrepresented: First of all the Hebrew word in some translations translated as "young boys" does not necessarily mean boys under ten - the word can be youths - and then consider the number of youths - 42 were killed by the bears - and so who knows how many more there were? They were saying, "Go up baldhead, etc. " The "go up" is likely a reference to what happened to Elisha's predecessor, Elijah - when he was taken up to heaven. Taking the whole picture together we have a mob spirit of youths taunting Elijah and very possibly threatening his life - And the prophet calls on God - and God answers in protection of his prophet.

I Samuel 6:19,20: God had given the Israelites many rules concerning the Ark of the Covenant. It was to be kept in the Most Holy Place in the temple, hidden from view by a curtain (Exodus 26:33). Only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place, and then only after he had undergone ceremonial cleansing, made sacrifices to atone for his sins and the nation's sins, and burned incense to conceal the atonement cover (Lev. 16). When the ark was moved, it was covered with at least 3 layers of cloth by the priests to protect others from seeing it (Numbers 4:5,6,15,18-20); the priests/Levites carried it and everyone else had to stay about a thousand yards away (Josh. 3:4). These laws enforced the concept of God's holiness: sinful people couldn't be in his presence, not even the high priest.
The Israelites who died here did not just make an innocent mistake: they were not supposed to come near the ark, much less touch it, or look inside it. The high priest went behind the curtain where the ark was kept only once a year to make a sacrifice for sins. Tradition says a rope was tied around his leg so if he made a wrong move and died so that he could be pulled out! Since God's presence was over the ark, they were actually coming into the presence of God - and without the least sense of reverence towards him, since they decided to poke around and play with his throne! Is it any wonder they died?

Sounds like a "dreadful" God, I suppose? Yes, He is "dreadfully" holy and high and mighty. I would not want to be on the side of His wrath. But I am not; I have chosen to believe in the sacrifice of His Son, and have found His love and mercy and grace to be beyond comprehension and understanding.

II Samuel 6:3-7 - Indeed, the death of Uzzah seems and was very tragic. But God had given very specific instructions about how the ark was to be carried Uzzah would very well have known that the ark was not to be touched. Touching the ark was in direct violation of God’s law and was to result in death. This was a means of preserving the sense of God’s holiness and the fear of drawing near to Him without appropriate preparation.

All seems "unfair" perhaps by our Western world view, but God is not a man that we should try to put Him in a box by our own standards. He is 100% justice, 100% mercy, 100% righteousness, 100% holiness, 100% love, and more -- but not by man's standards!

I Kings 20:35,36 - Here one of God's prophets refuses to listen to a direct command from God through another one of the prophets. The judgment from God is swift and sure.

These stories illustrate what I said in another post that the "wages of sin is death" - God is 100% holy and righteous and it takes only one small sin and we stand guilty before Him. We deserve death! Sometimes God brings judgment immediately and sometimes He extends mercy; but only one sin and we deserve death. Such is the standard of God (Yahweh). Could a perfect God have a lower standard? But, in his 100% mercy there is also a way of mercy . . .

Sometimes we may not know the whole of these difficult Biblical stories -- the prophet who was killed by the lion for this one infradtion? Maybe he had been internally harboring bitterness, anger, greed, etc. toward God, and maybe he had been in secret guilty of other infractions? we don't know? There are other similar Biblical stories - ex. Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts

From these stories I see the holiness and purity of God; There is no scorner or hypocrite who will fool God!

 

[Chester]

I see I have more catch-up to do!

 

[trofimus]

These are not the questions about Bible, but about specific interpretations of the Bible.

Theistic evolution or old earth creationsm accepts the Big Bang as fact and sees the God´s work in it. Most of christians accept that.

The situation in USA is a little specific, because there (and in Australia) is a very strong young earth creationism lobby. So christians are a little stressed by the "science vs faith" dilemma there, which is, in fact, only YEC vs science or atheism vs theism dilemma.

 

[alexxcjRO]

trofimus :"These are not the questions about Bible, but about specific interpretations of the Bible."

You don't agree for example with the interpretation of the bible of arminians like Dr. Craig Lane and C.S. Lewis regarding the free will theodacy of hell? I am curious to see your thoughts.

trofimus :"Theistic evolution or old earth creationsm accepts the Big Bang as fact and sees the God´s work in it. Most of christians accept that.
The situation in USA is a little specific, because there (and in Australia) is a very strong young earth creationism lobby. So christians are a little stressed by the "science vs faith" dilemma there, which is, in fact, only YEC vs science or atheism vs theism dilemma."

It doesn't matter if you are an Old Earth creationist or Young Earth creationist. You still have to account for the idea that God made Adam only 6000-7000 years old. If you look at the genealogy from Adam to Jesus you get 4000 or more years.

Genealogy from Adam to Jesus / The 7,000 Year Plan of God

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: "The article you send me says God (Yahweh) made Adam and Eve ~ 4,000 BC (6,000 years ago).
But what about the ancient independent civilizations, prehistoric people and all the sub-species humans that existed before 4,000 BCE (6,000years ago)?

Response: Most fossils and human remains are dated by the layers that they are found in. Some are dated by radiometric dating or other means. No one was there when these remains were buried. There are so many assumed things in the dating systems used that makes them very unprovable. This is one of the major arguments used against the young Earth Creation model, but the millions of years idea is not observational science. No one observed or took careful scientific observations of the age of the human remains or of the other fossils. What we have is extrapolations back into history based on what is seen in the present. And when these dating methods are used on rocks that have known dates of only hundreds of years old, they will sometimes test as millions of years old.
See this article: https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...es-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/And there are many other documentations available.

I prefer to trust the Biblical record inspired by a God who was there when it all began - around 6000 years ago.\


AlexxcjRO wrote:
(1): Some persons will, despite God's best efforts to save them, freely and irrevocably reject God and thus separate themselves from him forever.
All seems fine and beautiful at the first look. But let me point some important observations and objections:
However the logical possibility of (1) being true is compatible with its being false and with the very real possibility that the infinitely resourceful God will successfully win over all sinners in the end. It is even compatible with the epistemic certainty—based upon revelation, for example—that no one will successfully resist God's salvific will forever. So a plausible free will theodicy of the lake of fire requires more than the bare logical possibility that (1) is true.
For consider this:
- it is logically possible that a fair coin would never land heads up, not even once in a trillion tosses, such an eventuality is so incredibly improbable and so close to an impossibility that no one need fear it actually happening.
- Nor would (1) be any less improbable than that if an argument of Eric Reitan's should turn out to be correct. In working with a sinner S (shattering S's illusions and correcting S's ignorance), God could presumably bring S to a point, just short of actually determining S's choice, where S would see the choice between horror and bliss with such clarity that the probability of S repenting and submitting to God would be extremely high. Or, if you prefer, drop the probability to .5. Over an indefinitely long period of time, S would still have an indefinitely large number of opportunities to repent; and so, according to Reitan, the assumption that sinners retain their libertarian freedom forever (as the bible says explicitly) and that an omnipotent God will not eventually win over all sinners (and do so without causally determining their choices) is as impossible as that a coin will not land heads up in a trillion tosses. The impossible multiplies infinitely when we have billions of coins (sinners) and infinite tosses(oportunities).

You don’t seem to like random chance when it comes to how our universe and life appeared (even when I pointed a good argument, that of parallel universe, infinite alternative universes theory) but you seem to embrace it when it comes to the impossibility of billions of people to freely choose forever the torment of the lake of fire because they never will find and/or acknowledge the true God (Yahweh), they never repent, ask him for forgiveness; even though this omnipotent being tries also forever with all his might to reconcile with all of them"

Response: By the laws of probability, I suppose you can argue that it is theoretically possible for God to win over all people to him with an infinite number of tries . . . But here are at least three more things you need to throw into the mix:

(1) After a person has been "won over" by God he still has free choice and may decide to reject God (I am not a believer in "once saved always saved!" The free will of all the people I know is extremely fickle!

(2) If it was only God acting on and trying to convince man, it might be a conceivable scenario you give, but God has commissioned man to go out into the world to bring the message of salvation to all mankind. Sadly, many Christians act like they don't really believe in an eternal hell, and they do not tell and try to convince others to believe in Christ.

(3) Furthermore there is also Satan involved - who is the master of deceit - and he has many men on Earth so deceived that they are not even able to really hear what God would try to say to them.

So if you put every man/woman who has ever been born into a separate room where there are no outside distractions (nothing to disrupt the "probability count") and let God woo and try to convince them for an infinite number of times, then your scenario might come to pass. But add in the three points above, and it gets all messed up!

So what is the Christian's part - to tell the world the gospel message of salvation available through Jesus Christ.

AlexxcjRO wrote: By your logic every man that lived on Earth and did not repent is equally guilty in the eyes of God (Yahweh) no matter he sinned only once (told a single lie) or more (killed, raped, stole).
Let’s take a random super sinner(killed, raped, stole) from Sodom and Gomorrah, who was killed by God (Yahweh) and called him S1 and another random “light” sinner (told a single lie) that was not from Sodom and Gomorrah, who was not killed by God (Yahweh) and called him S2. Both had not repented for their sins at the moment God (Yahweh) decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah
By the same logic S1 and S2 are equally guilty in the eyes of God (Yahweh).
Q: If both equally guilty how come one was spared and one not?
A: No matter how you spin this does not make any sense."

Response: Yes, you got the part that one sin makes a person just as guilty before God as many sins. Since God is 100% righteous and holy, anything less than 100% holiness is unacceptable to him. Doesn't matter if you are 99.9% good or 1.1% good -- neither one is good enough to meet God's standard.

When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, there were most likely some very bad type sinners (1.1%) and some not so bad sinners (99.9%) in the city. They all died and stood condemned before God because they did not meet his standard.

In your scenario above, the S2 person may not have been destroyed at the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he still died sometime later. He was judged just the same as S1, but at a later time. Unless S2 repented of his sin, he was still short of God's standard.

God sets the standard of fairness and justice -- and his standard demands 100% perfection.

We cannot get there on our own - for we have all sinned - but through the forgiveness offered when we believe in Jesus we are washed clean and become 100% clean.

As I pointed out in a different post, to be "fair" by the standards you are suggesting, God would have to put everyone in exactly the same environment and they would need to experience exactly the same things the same number of times all in the same way. They would have to be the same height, the same hair color (not fair - he has black hair, and I am a "blonde"!!), etc.


AlexxcjRO wrote: "Q: If not everybody has the same number of opportunities to repent why judge them equally and punish them equally, is it fair?
A: Once you said that not all have the same opportunities, no matter how you spin it is not fair and just.
Conclusion: Because he does not give the same chance to repent to everybody it means he is either not omnipotent or not all loving, period."

Response: Why judge them equally and punish them equally? There is a question I am not positive how to answer immediately. Though I believe all sinners will be in hell eternally, there are some Biblical texts that do seem to hint at different levels of punishment in hell.

Everyone has a chance to repent - and it is the same for all - they can repent right up to the time that they die! That is how God views justice and fairness. The serial killer who repents one hour before his death reaches heaven in the same way as does the 90 year old saint who served God all his life. Again, as for hell, there are texts that hint at their being different levels of reward in heaven.

 

[trofimus]

trofimus :"These are not the questions about Bible, but about specific interpretations of the Bible."

You don't agree for example with the interpretation of the bible of arminians like Dr. Craig Lane and C.S. Lewis regarding the free will theodacy of hell? I am curious to see your thoughts.

trofimus :"Theistic evolution or old earth creationsm accepts the Big Bang as fact and sees the God´s work in it. Most of christians accept that.
The situation in USA is a little specific, because there (and in Australia) is a very strong young earth creationism lobby. So christians are a little stressed by the "science vs faith" dilemma there, which is, in fact, only YEC vs science or atheism vs theism dilemma."

It doesn't matter if you are an Old Earth creationist or Young Earth creationist. You still have to account for the idea that God made Adam only 6000-7000 years old. If you look at the genealogy from Adam to Jesus you get 4000 or more years.

Genealogy from Adam to Jesus / The 7,000 Year Plan of God

Arminians are not the only ones, you can interpret Bible in many other ways.

Old Earth creationism does not keep 7000 years for Adam.
Reasons To Believe : Who Was Adam? An Old-Earth Creation Model for the Origin of Humanity
- about 100 000 years, lets say
- genealogies in judaism and ancient cultures were just a significant points/names, not complete scientific line like today, so there are gaps in them

Theistic evolution accepts everything science does, so of course they dont keep 7 000 years.
BioLogos

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: Man your not just assuming that there is a designer, your also assuming the designer is Yahweh.
Also I didn’t said that there is not a designer at all, just that the designer is not Yahweh, as much that is not Allah, Zamolxis, Ra or Zeus and that the arguments brought to support the claim are weak (example: fine tuning argument).
Let’s assume there is a designer.
Also i make the following scenario again:
-I say maybe there are multiple universes independent of each other and in one of these universes: a billion old civilization has the technology to create a universe outside of their own. In one of their successful experiments they create our universe.
-You say Yahweh created the universe.
You may ask: Who created their universe? and go in infinite regress with the question.
-My answer: their universe is a stable, eternal universe that existed infinitely in the past and will in the future.
The same applies to God: Who created him? and again go in infinite regress with the question.
-Your answer: God has existed infinitely in the past and will in the future.
Also 4 billion years some inhabitants of this billion old civilization ago come to our universe and through an experiment create the primordial life on Earth, after from which evolved to what we have today.
Q: Is your theory more plausible, or probable then mine at this moment?
A: I am 100% that none of them are more plausible, or probable then the other at this moment.
Q: Do you have more evidence to support their claim then I have at this moment?
A: I am 100% you don’t have more as i am 100% i don't have more at this moment.
Q: How can you know for sure that Yahweh created the universe, life and not my aliens since either you or me did not witness none of the events?
A: I am 100% you don’t know for sure as i am 100% i don't know for sure.

Response:
Yes, I guess I am assuming not only that there is a designer, but also that He is God (Yahweh) and that He is "omnni-benevolent" and all knowing, etc. But not really just "assuming" -- I have good reasons . . .

Interesting and well though out and explained scenario - You explain well that your scenario could be just as viable as mine - I might argue mine is a much better option - but you might argue that yours is a much better option . . .

The difference is I have a book - the Bible - that explains and verifies "my option". Is the Bible A trustworthy book? Yes, it is for several reasons: (I give them only very briefly here, but each could be amplified and explained)

(1) Manuscript evidence: There are more copies and they are more consistent than the classics by Plato, Homer, and Socrates.
(2) Archeological evidence: The archaeological evidence confirms the cultural and historical references of the Bible.
(3) Eyewitness accounts: The Bible was written by men who were there and witnessed the events
(4) Fulfilled prophecy: About 300 OT prophecies about the coming of Christ, as well as many other specific prophecies were fulfilled just as prophesied.
(5) Much evidence for the resurrection - I have heard it said there is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than that Washington was president of the US - but I think that is stretching it a bit!
See www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection

Since the resurrection can be proved historically, then gives weight to what the Bible says about creation.

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester : "I prefer to trust the Biblical record inspired by a God who was there when it all began - around 6000 years ago."

So what are you telling me is to ignore all the scientific evidence from all this fields like modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics?

Chester :"By the laws of probability, I suppose you can argue that it is theoretically possible for God to win over all people to him with an infinite number of tries . . . But here are at least three more things you need to throw into the mix:
(1) After a person has been "won over" by God he still has free choice and may decide to reject God (I am not a believer in "once saved always saved!" The free will of all the people I know is extremely fickle!
(2) If it was only God acting on and trying to convince man, it might be a conceivable scenario you give, but God has commissioned man to go out into the world to bring the message of salvation to all mankind. Sadly, many Christians act like they don't really believe in an eternal hell, and they do not tell and try to convince others to believe in Christ.
(3) Furthermore there is also Satan involved - who is the master of deceit - and he has many men on Earth so deceived that they are not even able to really hear what God would try to say to them.
So if you put every man/woman who has ever been born into a separate room where there are no outside distractions (nothing to disrupt the "probability count") and let God woo and try to convince them for an infinite number of times, then your scenario might come to pass. But add in the three points above, and it gets all messed up!"

Seriously Chester? Let me put it more explicitly:
1.All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.
2.God is omnipotent and omniscient while Satan and man are infinitely more weak and ignorant.
3.God is infinitely wise with an infinite IQ while Satan and man are infinitely more foolish and stupid.
4.In an infinite war between God and Satan for the hearts and minds of billions of sinners, the infinitely more weak Satan will win all fights against the omnipotent and omniscient God. The all mighty, omnipotent and omniscient God will not win not even a single fight.
3.Through random chance ​all sinners will retain their libertarian freedom forever even though an omnipotent God tries to win over all of them (and do so without causally determining their choices) ; all will successfully resist God's salvific will forever.(Like for example i toss a coin for an infinite numbers of times and not a single time the coin lands heads)
4.Many men have freely-as free moral agents (even with Satan involvement) in their finite lives on Earth chose God.
5.Not a single man will freely-as free moral agents(even with Satan involvement) in their infinite stay in Hell choose God.

Logical conclusion: God(Yahweh) is either not omnipotent, not omniscient and not infinitely wise or melevolent.

Still believe that the concept of infinite torment in hell and omnipotent, all loving, perfectly good, omnibenevolent and infinitely wise are compatible?

 

[Chester]

AlexxcjRO wrote: "So what are you telling me is to ignore all the scientific evidence from all this fields like modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics?"

Response: I don't think I told you to"ignore" it. But I do trust the written record God gave in the Bible much more more than I trust what mere mortal men write and say. Observational science has done a fantastic job of finding and confirming the laws that God put in place in the universe. I am not saying to ignore those. But I trust the Bible's account of Creation more than I trust the ideas and dates that scientists have put together. As I said before, the Bible is my starting place. Biblical creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence - and each interpret the evidence based on their starting viewpoint. I think the evidence in the fossil record fits the Biblical record, not the evolutionary time scheme.

AlexxcjRO wrote:
"Seriously Chester? Let me put it more explicitly:
1.All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.
2.God is omnipotent and omniscient while Satan and man are infinitely more weak and ignorant.
3.God is infinitely wise with an infinite IQ while Satan and man are infinitely more foolish and stupid.
4.In an infinite war between God and Satan for the hearts and minds of billions of sinners, the infinitely more weak Satan will win all fights against the omnipotent and omniscient God. The all mighty, omnipotent and omniscient God will not win not even a single fight.

Response: ??? From where do you get conclusion #4? Previously you were trying to prove God would win every sinner over to himself. You did this by using probability. Now it seems you are doing the opposite? Or saying I am doing the opposite?

I am not trying to be difficult -- I am just not understanding you, or you are not understanding me . . . . ??


3.Through random chance ​all sinners will retain their libertarian freedom forever even though an omnipotent God tries to win over all of them (and do so without causally determining their choices) ; all will successfully resist God's salvific will forever.(Like for example i toss a coin for an infinite numbers of times and not a single time the coin lands heads)
4.Many men have freely-as free moral agents (even with Satan involvement) in their finite lives on Earth chose God.
5.Not a single man will freely-as free moral agents(even with Satan involvement) in their infinite stay in Hell choose God.

Response: Same here - I am even more confused - you go 1,2,3,4 and then back to 3,4 -- I just don't follow what you are trying to say? Trying to give two options that could happen at 3,4? ???????


Logical conclusion: God(Yahweh) is either not omnipotent, not omniscient and not infinitely wise or melevolent.

Still believe that the concept of infinite torment in hell and omnipotent, all loving, perfectly good, omnibenevolent and infinitely wise are compatible?"

Response: I lost your train of thought further back, so I don't understand how you came up with your conclusions?

 

[alexxcjRO]

Chester : "Response: I lost your train of thought further back, so I don't understand how you came up with your conclusions?"


Let me put it more explicitly(hope you understand better):

Logical deduction:

1.All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.(this is considered true by Christians; God is all loving and omnibenevolent)
2.God is omnipotent and omniscient while Satan and man are infinitely more weak and ignorant.(this is considered true by Christians ; Satan and man are God's creation therefore they are inferior to him; finite against infinite)
3.God is infinitely wise with an infinite IQ while Satan and man are infinitely more foolish and stupid.(this is considered true by Christians; Satan and man are God's creation therefore they are and inferior to him ; finite against infinite)
4.Nobody will get out of hell. (this is considered true by Christians)
5.In an infinite war between God and Satan for the hearts and minds of billions of sinners, the infinitely more weak Satan will win all fights against the omnipotent and omniscient God. The all mighty, omnipotent and omniscient God will not win not even a single fight.(this is deduced from 4)
6.Through random chance ​all sinners will retain their libertarian freedom forever even though an omnipotent God tries to win over all of them (and do so without causally determining their choices) ; all will successfully resist God's salvific will forever.(Like for example i toss a coin for an infinite numbers of times and not a single time the coin lands heads) (this is deduced from 4)
7.Many men have freely-as free moral agents (even with Satan involvement) in their finite lives on Earth chose God.
(this is considered true by Christians; thousands will chose God during their mortal life and be saved and go to Heaven)
8.Not a single man will freely-as free moral agents(even with Satan involvement) in their infinite stay in Hell choose God.(this is deduced from 4)

Logical conclusion: God(Yahweh) is either not omnipotent, not omniscient and not infinitely wise or melevolent.

 

[alexxcjRO]

trofimus : "Arminians are not the only ones, you can interpret Bible in many other ways."

Let's have these 3 propositions:

(1) All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.
(2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires.
(3) Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

-Augustinians believe strongly in both the sovereignty of God's will (proposition (2)) and the reality of an everlasting separation from God (proposition (3)), they finally reject the idea that God's unconditional (or electing) love extends to all humans equally (proposition (1));
-Arminians believe in both God's equal love for all (proposition (1)) and the reality of an everlasting separation from God (proposition (3)), they finally reject the idea that God's desire to win over all will be fully satisfied (proposition (2));
-Christian universalists believe in both God's equal love for all (proposition (1)) and the ultimate triumph of his loving will (proposition (2)), they finally reject altogether the idea of an everlasting separation from God (proposition (3)).
-Anihilationists believe all three propositions to be false, God will not try to reconcile with all, by this they indirectly reject the idea that God's unconditional (or electing) love extends to all humans equally and that God will destroy those that don't go to Heaven.

When it comes to hell you can only logically be one of these 4:
1.Augustinian
2.Arminian
3.Universalist
4.Annihilationist
So which one are you ?

trofimus :"Old Earth creationism does not keep 7000 years for Adam.
Reasons To Believe : Who Was Adam? An Old-Earth Creation Model for the Origin of Humanity
- about 100 000 years, lets say
- genealogies in judaism and ancient cultures were just a significant points/names, not complete scientific line like today, so there are gaps in them
Theistic evolution accepts everything science does, so of course they dont keep 7 000 years.
BioLogos"

So how about Homo Erectus, Homo habilis and Homo neanderthalensis?

1. Turkana Boy, now called Nariokotome Boy, is the common name of Homo erectus fossil KNM-WT 15000, a nearly complete skeleton of a hominin youth who lived during the early Pleistocene. This specimen is the most complete early human skeleton ever found. It is believed to be between 1.5 and 1.6 million years old. Estimates of his age at death range from seven to 18 years old; the most recent scientific review suggests eight years. It was initially suggested that he would have grown into a 185 centimetres (73 in) tall adult, but the most recent analysis argues for the much shorter stature of 163 centimetres (64 in). The reason for this shift has been research showing that his growth maturation differed from that of modern humans in that he would have had a briefer and smaller adolescent growth spurt. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.

2. KNM ER 3733 is a fossilized hominid cranium of the extinct hominid Homo ergaster, which is interchangeably referred to as Homo erectus. It was discovered in 1975 in Koobi Fora, Kenya, right next to Lake Turkana, by Bernard Ngeneo, a field worker for Richard Leakey. Its geographic location is not to be confused with that of KNM WT 15000, Turkana Boy, also known as Nariokotome Boy, who was also found near Lake Turkana nine years later in 1984. KNM ER 3733 is one of the oldest Homo ergaster skulls in the world. Recent research using magneto stratigraphy has determined the age of KNM-ER 3733 to be about 1.6 million years old. KNM ER 3733 is a find of a near-complete cranium. Its brain size is about 850cc. KNM ER 3733 was compared to male fossils KNM ER 3833 and KNM WT 15000 (Turkana Boy), who were also found at the Koobi Fora site, and because of this, is said to be female. The features of KNM ER 3733 are less robust compared to the two male crania. It is considered an adult because of the extensive wear of its teeth, the fact that its third molars were present before the individual died, and because its cranial sutures were fully fused, which is only possible in adult specimen.

 

[trofimus]

When it comes to hell you can only logically be one of these 4:
1.Augustinian
2.Arminian
3.Universalist
4.Annihilationist
So which one are you ?

I am kind of agnostic about this topic, because I do not have enough information what will be the new universe and hell like.

We have only images and the promise it will be something we cannot imagine now, in this dimension. What do you want to build from images? Its futile.

So how about Homo Erectus, Homo habilis and Homo neanderthalensis?

It depends what view do you hold. If you are asking about Old Earth Creationism:
Reasons To Believe : Hominids