How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[Jamdoc]

God requires justice; a higher kind of justice than we can afford ourselves.

And since we can't meet that measure of justice, God meets it for us.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

It's like a judge assessing a trillion dollar fine on someone, or they'll spend all eternity in jail; then that judge paying the fine himself.

Our own attempts at justification doesn't cut it.

For the record, there are three types of judgement that God meets out:

1. Justice = getting what we deserve = Hell
   
2. Mercy = not getting what we deserve
3. Grace = getting what we don't deserve = Heaven

And guess which one God offers?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Just wanted to emphasize that it's not the same as the judge just forgiving the fine and the fine not being paid.
The fine is still being paid, SOMEONE is being punished, it's just someone in your place.
That is ultimately a difference between Islam and Christianity as well.
In Islam, Allah just up and forgives people for their sins without a savior or atonement, so justice is not served. Allah is an unjust "god". It is further emphasized because a Muslim does not know if Allah will forgive him, or not, he can just try to be as righteous as he can and hope Allah is merciful.
So not only is justice not served on some, but on who it is meted on on, is totally arbitrary, making it not justice at all.

Within Christianity, the OFFER to have the Judge pay the fine Himself is open, but it's your choice.. accept the mercy, or demand that you stand judgement for your own actions.. in which case you will inevitably be found guilty and punished. Either way, Justice is served, punishments are applied for every sin committed.
It's just whether you accept that you cannot pay your fine and accept the offer of the Judge, who didn't commit the crime, you did, paying the fine for you out of love, or, you receive the justice you deserve yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have it backwards.
God is the objective source of morals and laws.
not humans
note that when humans reject God they reject objective morality and morality all becomes relative.

Really. How would you support your claim of objective morality comes from God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God requires justice; a higher kind of justice than we can afford ourselves.

And since we can't meet that measure of justice, God meets it for us.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

It's like a judge assessing a trillion dollar fine on someone, or they'll spend all eternity in jail; then that judge paying the fine himself.

Our own attempts at justification doesn't cut it.

For the record, there are three types of judgement that God meets out:

1. Justice = getting what we deserve = Hell
   
2. Mercy = not getting what we deserve
3. Grace = getting what we don't deserve = Heaven

And guess which one God offers?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Why debase God by giving him our human flaws? Why is "justice" required? Was God harmed? Until you show that the Bible is a reliable source you need to be able to go outside of the Bible to support your claims. The Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just wanted to emphasize that it's not the same as the judge just forgiving the fine and the fine not being paid.
The fine is still being paid, SOMEONE is being punished, it's just someone in your place.
That is ultimately a difference between Islam and Christianity as well.
In Islam, Allah just up and forgives people for their sins without a savior or atonement, so justice is not served. Allah is an unjust "god". It is further emphasized because a Muslim does not know if Allah will forgive him, or not, he can just try to be as righteous as he can and hope Allah is merciful.
So not only is justice not served on some, but on who it is meted on on, is totally arbitrary, making it not justice at all.

Within Christianity, the OFFER to have the Judge pay the fine Himself is open, but it's your choice.. accept the mercy, or demand that you stand judgement for your own actions.. in which case you will inevitably be found guilty and punished. Either way, Justice is served, punishments are applied for every sin committed.
It's just whether you accept that you cannot pay your fine and accept the offer of the Judge, who didn't commit the crime, you did, paying the fine for you out of love, or, you receive the justice you deserve yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is not justice either. You have the same problems that the Muslims do. And you have only claimed that God is just. That is a human trait that is used to keep people honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Until you show that the Bible is a reliable source you need to be able to go outside of the Bible to support your claims.

Sure thing:

1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
11. Two major nations founded on His existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure thing:

1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
11. Two major nations founded on His existence.

Sorry, none of those examples support your claims.

Those examples only tell us that there are some that believe in the Bible. Some of them so strongly that they are not afraid to break the law in demonstrating belief. People having a belief is not evidence for the Bible.

It appears that you have no understanding of what qualifies as evidence.

 

[Jamdoc]

A wicked generation asks for a sign...

 

[Subduction Zone]

A wicked generation asks for a sign...

No one has asked for a sign.

Unless you are talking about Christians. Atheists never ask for signs. They just want evidence.

 

[Jamdoc]

No one has asked for a sign.

Unless you are talking about Christians. Atheists never ask for signs. They just want evidence.

I was quoting Jesus, but it's the same concept.
"prove it"

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, none of those examples support your claims.

It's called cause-and-effect.

Those examples only tell us that there are some that believe in the Bible.

In the case of BC/AD, even you have to use references to Jesus Christ; whether you believe in Him or not.

Some of them so strongly that they are not afraid to break the law in demonstrating belief.

Oh.

People having a belief is not evidence for the Bible.

In the list that I gave you, please highlight in red what would still be in existence today, if God doesn't exist.

It appears that you have no understanding of what qualifies as evidence.

God's fingerprints are all over this universe.

But for the record, I wasn't just making a rhetorical request.

Please highlight in red what wouldn't be, if God wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheists never ask for signs. They just want evidence.

Let's talk about atheists then.

Would atheists exist, if God didn't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called cause-and-effect.In the case of BC/AD, even you have to use references to Jesus Christ; whether you believe in Him or not.Oh.In the list that I gave you, please highlight in red what would still be in existence today, if God doesn't exist.God's fingerprints are all over this universe.

But for the record, I wasn't just making a rhetorical request.

Please highlight in red what wouldn't be, if God wasn't.

No, it is a failure on your part. Please learn what qualifies as evidence. Since the Muslim countries are a bit more fanatical than most Christian countries there is probably far more "evidence" for their beliefs than yours. You lose either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's talk about atheists then.

Would atheists exist, if God didn't?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please learn what qualifies as evidence.

I said cause-and-effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

LOL

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said cause-and-effect.

It does not matter. You got your cause wrong. By your standards there is more and stronger evidence for Islam.

 

[Shemjaza]

Kind = Genus

*
Large scale and continuous miraculous intervention required.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He'd be an unjust God then. Sin has to be punished, or there is no justice.

So much for all-merciful, all-forgiving... What you describe sounds like a form of retributive justice. Can you explain why retributive justice is necessary? What is the goal of it? presumably, punishment is intended to harm the sinner, but to what end, and who, if anyone, benefits?

I'm also curious about what counts as punishment- for example, if a judge decides that, instead of a fine, she will sentence a drunk driver or a speeding driver to an educational course that will graphically illustrate the risk and danger of their actions to them and others, is that punishment in your view? is justice done?

Or if a judge decides that instead of a prison term, he will sentence a burglar to return the stolen goods or pay restitution, and to meet with the victim to explain why he did what he did and for the victim to tell him how it affected them, is that punishment in your view? Is justice done?

In both the above examples, the outcomes, such as the likelihood of reoffending and victim satisfaction are much improved over purely punitive responses such as fines and imprisonment. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? is it just or unjust?

 

[Jamdoc]

So much for all-merciful, all-forgiving... What you describe sounds like a form of retributive justice. Can you explain why retributive justice is necessary? What is the goal of it? presumably, punishment is intended to harm the sinner, but to what end, and who, if anyone, benefits?

I'm also curious about what counts as punishment- for example, if a judge decides that, instead of a fine, she will sentence a drunk driver or a speeding driver to an educational course that will graphically illustrate the risk and danger of their actions to them and others, is that punishment in your view? is justice done?

Or if a judge decides that instead of a prison term, he will sentence a burglar to return the stolen goods or pay restitution, and to meet with the victim to explain why he did what he did and for the victim to tell him how it affected them, is that punishment in your view? Is justice done?

In both the above examples, the outcomes, such as the likelihood of reoffending and victim satisfaction are much improved over purely punitive responses such as fines and imprisonment. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? is it just or unjust?

Crimes need punishment. or there is no such thing as justice, and no discouragement from doing the crimes over and over.
Every time a person lies, and thinks they got away with it and will never be caught? That has to be punished. Because they're thinking they're getting away with it? They just keep on doing it.
So judgement has to be passed and a punishment meted out. If you speed, you get a ticket, and you have to pay it, it would be unjust of the judge to not make the fine be paid.. however.. someone can pay the fine for you.

Now if someone pays the fine for you, they've done something for you that makes you value them.
It still discourages you from speeding again because... someone else paid on your behalf for it, and promised to do so again... but you don't want to keep abusing that relationship, and you can't afford to pay the fines yourself... so.. you're a lot more likely to stop speeding.

and.. this was only possible, bringing it back around, because God incarnated a human body. Which is possible because man was created in God's image.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have it backwards.
God is the objective source of morals and laws.
not humans
note that when humans reject God they reject objective morality and morality all becomes relative.

The problem with that view is that the supposedly 'objective' morality is what people think their God commands; each religion has a slightly different version, and each thinks theirs is the one true version. So even for god believers, morality is not objective and absolute - they just claim that it is.

There was an interesting study that found Christian's views about how God would view the morality of various example situations varied according to their emotional state (mood) after watching selected films (e.g. happy & uplifting vs violent or dystopian). IOW, what they thought of as God's moral view actually depended on their state of mind. A similar effect is seen where individuals change their religious allegiance to a religion or sect more in tune with their own personal moral views. Objective morality? I think not.

The core fundamentals of morality, concepts based on fairness, are pretty much universal in both religious and non-religious, but their application varies, with differences in the specifics of what is and isn't fair treatment (e.g. 'an eye for an eye', or 'turn the other cheek') and who is entitled to fair treatment (e.g. 'all people' or 'only people in our group', and especially, 'only people who share our beliefs').

But in practice, religious tenets and dogmas are commonly honoured in the breach; for example, the Christian tenet of 'love your neighbour as yourself'. As a naive youngster growing up with such contradictions, I found the hypocrisy surprising.