What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

So the problem might be your odd translation. The section you are referring to as "we", being the things made is actually a dependent clause. I will give you the ESV version which makes the grammar more clear.

I realize that in the verse it is talking about the evidence of the universe and have used that in this forum many times. I should have said I was trying to be funny.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-21, 23-30, 32 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.1.18-32.ESV
So you can see that things made is a data set that acts as evidence for God's attributes, specifically for this group of people. The problem with your interpretation of this text is that you stop after your proof text even though the author does not. You want to end with an "ah ha!" moment where God has made himself plain to "them" so they are without excuse. But the text continues. It tells us more about this mysterious "them" and as I showed in an earlier post it does not at all line up with your reading that it is all humanity. Of you think it is about all humanity please read the while passage and explain where I have gone wrong in my analysis.
I also notice that you didn't deal with the counterfactual point form Corinthians so even if you can explain how my reading of Romans is mistaken (I doubt this is possible... But I have been wrong before!) you still need to explain how in your view Romans says everyone knows and Corinthians says not all men know.

Looking forward to it

I don't know if you are referring to the we being what is made as odd or my entire view. But a quick search on google confirms that my view is pretty much the standard understanding of Christians.

http://www.blogos.org/exploringtheword/without-excuse.php

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/1-19.htm

http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_1.htm

The Corinthians is talking about Jesus specifically.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Fair enough (on your world view of course)
2. Age of grace sure, but what does this mean exactly in relation to orders to kill people? If I understand you properly you are saying that the only reason God ever had anyone killed in OT times, was because it was necessary for his plan to bring Jesus to the world. Is that right?
3. Are you talking about the book of revelations ?

1. Ok.
2. There were several reason that God commanded death to certain people in the OT. At that time all people were under that Time of the Law or Old Covenantal system. WE are under the New Covenant.
3. That and the other Books on Prophecy.

 

[Athée]

I realize that in the verse it is talking about the evidence of the universe and have used that in this forum many times. I should have said I was trying to be funny.

Ah, that makes more sense. Totally missed that since it seed to support your main premise in the argument.

I don't know if you are referring to the we being what is made as odd or my entire view. But a quick search on google confirms that my view is pretty much the standard understanding of Christians.

Isn't it interesting that Christians can be just as bad for taking a verse out of context! Notice that those commentaries tend to cut off after the proof text in the same way you have done and jaunt gloss over the fact that Paul wasn't done yet. Nine of them trace the "they/them" that are the subject of the argument from beginning to end. When you actually read what Paul wrote it become clear that this is a specific group. If you disagree please offer an interpretation that successfully deals with the consistency of "them/they" all the way to the end of the section (Or conceed that I am correct on this one of course )

The Corinthians is talking about Jesus specifically.

Swing and a miss!
And I quote:
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:5-7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.8.5-7.ESV

There were several reason that God commanded death to certain people in the OT. At that time all people were under that Time of the Law or Old Covenantal system. WE are under the New Covenant.

So before Jesus there were sins that deserved immediate death, including not being one of God's chosen people. After Jesus they are still deserving a death penalty but God is not going to follow through. My question is why? There are some people who are sinning today, who God knows will never turn to him. What prevents him from ordering them killed?

As an aside we are not actually free from the OT law, you still can't wear mixed fabrics or teach others to do the same, but now Jesus covers for this appalling and egregious, totally deserving of hell, sin.

 

[Davian]

No this is like:
Davian: You have no evidence for God existing.

No, I concede that you have lots of evidence for your god. All of it is terrible, and you have yet to present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Me: provide evidence that God doesn't exist.

Indeed, you have fallen down that hole of asking others to prove a negative.

Davian: I don't have to provide evidence for a negative.

Should my response have been different?

I don't ask you to provide evidence that God doesn't exist because you don't have to get evidence to show my claim is false, I have to provide evidence that my claim is true and He does.

And that is what I have done here; you made the claim, and I have simply asked for you to substantiate it.

This is the same thing. I don't have to provide evidence for something I don't know exists.

And I never made that request of you.

I am not being dishonest and this is the last time I will respond to anything you post if you continue to make unfounded accusations against me.

Did you not say "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter."?

Do you exempt yourself from substantiating your own claims?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah, that makes more sense. Totally missed that since it seed to support your main premise in the argument.

Isn't it interesting that Christians can be just as bad for taking a verse out of context! Notice that those commentaries tend to cut off after the proof text in the same way you have done and jaunt gloss over the fact that Paul wasn't done yet. Nine of them trace the "they/them" that are the subject of the argument from beginning to end. When you actually read what Paul wrote it become clear that this is a specific group. If you disagree please offer an interpretation that successfully deals with the consistency of "them/they" all the way to the end of the section (Or conceed that I am correct on this one of course )

I don't understand why you feel the rest of the passage takes it another direction.

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-study-and-exposition-romans-118-32

Swing and a miss!
And I quote:
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:5-7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.8.5-7.ESV

After reading it again, I tapped into some other Christians to see what their interpretation was and now its is clear to me at least that I was wrong and that this is talking about new believers and how they not all have the knowledge that the idol worship of the past is defiling them. So this is not talking about knowledge of God or Jesus as a whole but the former idol worship of the new believers defiling them in their new faith in Christ.

So before Jesus there were sins that deserved immediate death, including not being one of God's chosen people. After Jesus they are still deserving a death penalty but God is not going to follow through. My question is why? There are some people who are sinning today, who God knows will never turn to him. What prevents him from ordering them killed?

As an aside we are not actually free from the OT law, you still can't wear mixed fabrics or teach others to do the same, but now Jesus covers for this appalling and egregious, totally deserving of hell, sin.

My my your teeth are showing.

Are you doubting that we are in a new covenant?

Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:6 - But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

2 Corinthians 3:6 - Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Mark 14:24 - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Jews have not accepted this new covenant but will:

Jeremiah 31:31 - Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I concede that you have lots of evidence for your god. All of it is terrible, and you have yet to present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Indeed, you have fallen down that hole of asking others to prove a negative.

Should my response have been different?

And that is what I have done here; you made the claim, and I have simply asked for you to substantiate it.

And I never made that request of you.

Did you not say "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter."?

Do you exempt yourself from substantiating your own claims?

The only life that has ever existed and has evidence for it is life coming from life. IF you have evidence for life ever coming from non-life then I will concede.

 

[Athée]

I don't understand why you feel the rest of the passage takes it another direction.

Because of the consistent use of they. They, are the people suppressing truth in unrighteousness. So God gives them over to desires and the men (all inclusive term) and women (again all not some) turn to homosexual relationships. Just read the passage, the them being described can not mean all gentiles. I know this is a common reading of the passage but it is clearly incorrect. Paul tells us a lot aboht this group of "them" and those characteristics do not fit will all gentiles.

After reading it again, I tapped into some other Christians to see what their interpretation was and now its is clear to me at least that I was wrong and that this is talking about new believers and how they not all have the knowledge that the idol worship of the past is defiling them. So this is not talking about knowledge of God or Jesus as a whole but the former idol worship of the new believers defiling them in their new faith in Christ.

Time to tap some new sources I guess ... Again this is clearly not the case. Paul is talking to this church and I guess by definition they are new believers. He says (to paraphrase) Now we know that there is only one God, the father and one Lord, Jesus. But not everyone has this knowledge. So the we in that section is the church he is talking to. The everyone is all the people who are not part of his church that don't have the knowledge. What knowledge? The knowledge that there is one God, the father and one Lord, Jesus. So he can't be talking about Christians because by definition they would know that Jesus is Lord and God is the father.

So we are back where we started... Despite your claims to the contrary not everyone knows from the creation of the world that your God exists and is God etc.

My my your teeth are showing.

All the better to grind at you my dear...
But seriously I am just saying what you seem to believe but without sugar coating it. It's not so much my teeth showing as it is God's character.

Are you doubting that we are in a new covenant?

Nope, just pointing out that Jesus said to still obey the laws.

Hopefully you get a chance to pump out your next instalment of our super long posts series soon
Did you need me to repost my latest entry or are you OK to look it up?

Hope you are having a good day!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey Once, thanks for taking the time to respond twice!

grrrrr.

Sure, I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. I don't see what saying " a magical being did this by magic" helps explain anything, you think God is the ultimate explanation for everything and gives it purpose. For what it's worth, If God existed I would agree with you

Ok, I'm glad you see it as cohesive within my worldview.

This sounds like an appeal to the teleological argument. How would you present the teleological?

While I admit that my question sounds more like gibberish...I really need to proof read these things before I post. But I'd like you to answer it, and it should have been: What evidence do you feel shows that God is not necessary for the creation of a universe?

Actually it shows that even if your interpretation of Romans was correct (and I demonstrated clearly that it was not) there is a problem. You believe that God, not just a generic deity concept but your specific God, Yahweh, has made himself known to all through creation. Most people do not believe that Yahweh exists, therefore of he does exist he has failed to communicate it effectively.

I posted about the Romans passage on the other post. I guess He should have signed His work.

This boils down to: God has given me personal information that makes me know I am right, even though there is no evidence that this is the case. Not very compelling.

I agree that it is not that compelling for you, but for me it seals the deal.

Trick question?
Evolution is exactly this. Natural selection, working on random mutations, selecting those which perform a function that enhances reproduction. You end up with features that perform a task really well.

We were discussing the universe not the life in it. By the way you didn't give me a link to that universe that I asked about. I'd like that model as I've never heard of it I guess.

You are still missing the point. The Ed hypothesis accounts for the data exact as well as the Yahweh hypothesis. You say I have made up the Ed hypothesis and this is exactly what I think your God concept is, simply that it was invented a long time ago and evolved. In any case you said you have proved no other possibilities existed. I have given you the Ed possibility. Give me a single bit of evidence or some sort of counterfactual that nullifies the Ed hypothesis and I will stop asking about it. But until that time you are simply not justified in claiming that your God is the only possible explanation. Some accusing me of making Ed up doesn't constitute such evidence by the say since it could be the case that Ed exists but simply fooled me into thinking I invented the idea, specifically so that you would not believe in him, therefore causing you to dedicate your life to a fake God and caring you immense suffering and regret upon meeting Ed when you die.

Its your claim, the burden of proof rests with you to show me that Ed exists and does as you claim.

In this instance using the Bible is circular. It is true that God is the only explanation because it is in the Bible and we know the Bible is true because it is the truth inspired by the one true God....
Secondly, I have not seen you invoke any science on this question (nor should you, I think you are thinking of some other question) and lastly personal experience is terrible evidence.

It is your claim about Ed and one that you need to back up if you want me to believe it a possibility. I have provided science in defense of my position, not in our posts however. Personal experience is terrible evidence for those who don't share it, I agree with that.

I kept these together because they seemed related.you are saying that of something can exist independent of human minds then it proves it is dependent on God. This is flawed. I would argue that the laws of non contradiction would hold even if no God existed. If you disagree please demonstrate why God is necessary as a foundation for the laws of logic.

Fair enough, what explanation for them would you propose if no minds existed for the laws of logic?

Thanks for the compliment but surely you see the irony here! I specifically said that the science is unclear, that we don't know if they lived thousands of years apart of at the same time. You then use this uncertainty as an opportunity to claim with certainty that they did exist at the same time by assuming this in your question, how did we all come from one man and one woman.

Whoa there cowboy, I was congratulating you on going further which had nothing to do with me thinking you agreed with me or even that my point was secure. I also never claimed that this woman was the only one living at that time. You are using a great deal of assumptions to accuse me of things I didn't do.

This is exactly the argument from ignorance fallacy that I specifically wanted you not to fall in to when discussing this exact evidence. Moreover, you didn't acknowledge that the science also says that mitochondrial Eve is not the same thing as first female human. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent female ancestor of all humanity. Not at all the same thing. There could have been generations before this mitochondrial Eve. In short you have focused on the small part of the science that seems to confirm your conclusion about a historical Adam and Eve, but have ignored the rest of the data. This is classic confirmation bias. If you want to make the claim that science has confirmed Adam and Eve, please make the case and address the objections that lead the vast majority of relevant experts to disagree with your interpretation of the science.

Hows that log in your eye there Athee? 1. I never claimed that ME was the first female human. 2. I didn't focus on "this small part of science" you just have assumed this and then accused me of ignoring the rest of the data. 3. Then you ask me to address my objections of all the "relevant experts". Can you see inside of all that smoke from the straw man I just burned?

Yes it is consistent but doesn't in any way solve the problem unless you also believe that Satan is more powerful than God. If not then God has allowed, and indeed even planned for Satan to do all these things. The problem remains, God is in charge and his plan is as I described. How is this not incompetent? Or I guess just plain cruel would be another way of explaining the data.

I don't believe that Satan is more powerful than God or Satan would have done away with God when he decided to sin and try to take over God's throne. He would not have been thrown out of heaven if he was more powerful than God. Do you think that humans needed Satan to sin? I don't. I believe just as with man God allowed Satan to have choice and Satan's choice was to overtake God. God used Satan's own will and what that would present into God's creation to do God's own will. Now was God not good for allowing evil, if He didn't allow evil would be able to have free will. I don't think so, is it important for us to have free will, I think so. I like to have choices.

You said that morals are objective and that they are based in the character and nature of God, which never changes.

The objective principals never do change but they are not absolute in our own character. We can twist them, define them even though we have to live by them. We can abide that murder is wrong, but we can change the definition of murder or the definition of what constitutes a victim of murder. We abide that rape is wrong but we can twist it around and claim that an act of rape wasn't rape because....or that stealing is wrong but we can rationalize what is stealing means and then there is lying, all people think lying is wrong unless it is to save somebody's feeling or life but some can justify it for one reason or another. So everyone believes that murder is wrong no matter what culture, what period anywhere in the world but where we get around this objective principle is to determine what defines murder. Abortion is not murder because the baby hasn't been born for instance.

Becaise he could have created us in heaven with him, perfect and without the inclination to sin. He didn't because we need to experiment life on earth and choice and all that jazz (this is according to your world view bu the way) meaning that he had a reason for us to be in this suffering.

How do you know He could have created us perfect without the inclination to sin? What information do you have that provides you with this belief?

Easy, Jesus said so.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13-14 ESV
http://bible.com/59/mat.7.13-14.ESV

I just showed you that statistically that while it is not all, that it would be a majority. He also says: "And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.30"And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last."

So what do you think that means?

And there you have it. Many end up on the path to destruction and few even find the path to life.
Please answer the question in which this appears.

I don't know what question you are referring to.

Actually no...
Assertion 1.God is a Just God.
Assertion 2.He is loving yes,
Assertion 3. He is good yes, but He is also just.
Assertion 4. He is also totally righteous and can not be in the presence of sin or evil.
Assertion 5. God provides justice for all that have been wronged.
Assertion 6. If there is justice, God provides mercy as well.
Assertion 7. The mercy is in the covering of Jesus paying the debt.

I was gave a great deal of information on how many people would be saved and you ignore that and post this? I wonder why?

I'm confused. You seem to be making my point for me. Knowing good and evil are not the same as knkwing she should do what God said... Therefore when she disorder eyed God she did so without any knowledge that it was evil or sinful to do so. You can still say she sinned but she certainly didn't knowingly sin. How is this just? Can you imagine putting your kids in a situation where they have to make choices based on very important rules but then not telling them what the rules are. Then to make it worse the consequences for breaking the rules are incredibly severe and there is no second chance. Would you consider yourself a just parent?

I try to be.

Are you saying that if the news had not done any of the sacrifices God had told them to do, but had believed in God and in the messiah, that they would still have been cleansed from sin?

If they believe God and didn't do what He told them to do they would not actually believe God was who He was. So it is irrelevant.

You ha e cited this a blog times now but never provided any commentary. How do these verses show that Jesus in the OT didn't need to perform the sacrifices God told them to, in order to be cleansed.

I thought it was pretty obvious but the whole group show that it is by faith everyone was saved.

Well no this is not true. God knew before he created the universe that not all of us image bearers would be saved.

That doesn't mean that they could not have been saved.

I'm confused, how does my analogy fail? God chooses a single people group to bring about the future he wants = parent chooses 1 special child invest in for the future of the family.
God ignores the other groups leaving them outside loving relationship with him = parent ignores other disabled children
Parent is unloving and unjust for doing this, therefore so is God.

This is just a straw man.

Does it bother you that you have to rely on speculation so often do make the case for God being good?
God planned for Adam and Eve to sin... But maybe there is a good reason.
God allowed Satan to mess everything up... But maybe there is a good reason.
God drowned men, women, children, infants, foetuses in the flood.... But maybe there was a good reason.
God allows entire Nations to flourish, only to have them all killed... But maybe there is a good reason.
I could do this for hours but here is the point that.
From a speculative premise you only ever get a speculative conclusion.
I understand that I can't prove with absolute certainty that there is no possible explanation for why a God would do these things. On the other hand your only defence for these actions is that God is not like a human and maybe he has good reasons. This means that the absolute strongest conclusion you can reach is that MAYBE God is good.

My worldview is cohesive and based on my experience with God. I know that when things seem bad even in my life that the outcome has always been for the good. On the other hand you have no first hand experience with regard to God in anyway, you lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to aid in your understanding, you hold just as much of a confirmation bias against God as I do for Him and then tell me that I always claim that God has a good purpose behind what seems like a bad thing. While you judge God with the limited information you hold.

Nope, good effort though... How about this as a God I could move them to another planet, or I could just force them to love me, sure that isn't as great as them choosing it but at least I don't have to send then to a he'll that wasn't even made for them.Even better all thier kids would be raised in an environment where they would choose to love me! Problem solved and no genocide required
I guess I am smarter than God...

Yeah, that is what Satan thought too.

This is pure speculation with absolutely zero evidence to support it.

The evidence is that Hitler and Stalin killed millions upon millions of people. That is not zero evidence.

These are just the obvious ones... There are more

I agree that there are verses that confirm that some predestination exists and so does free will. While I don't think that all of these show predestination, there are those that do.
How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You
To dwell in Your courts.
We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house,
Your holy temple.

– Ps 65:4

The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.

– Prov 16:4

And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

– Mt 24:31

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?

– Luke 18:7

So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

– Acts 15:17-18

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

– Romans 8:28- 30

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;

– Rom 8:33

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

– Romans 9:11

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

– Romans 9:15-16 (the whole chapter)

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

– Rom 11:2

In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

– Romans 11:5-7

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;

– 1 Cor 2:7

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,…

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

– Ephesians 1:5,11

knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;

– 1 Thes 1:4

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

– 2 Thes 2:13

Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

– Titus 1:1

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

– 1 Peter 1:2

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

– Rev 13:8

So God told them to commit sinful acts?

No. He just gave them instructions about it.

I am going to cite the verses again just to be clear:

“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Exodus 21:18-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.18-21.ESV

Once, with all due respect, your reading of this simply does not make sense.
First the verse says nothing about the quarling man dying and being avenged. As far as I can tell you have simply added that in, I have no idea from where. Thus the first parallel that you make is simply not in the text.
Then you seem to imply there is only a minor difference between a free man being allowed to rest and heal and be compensated for this time and the slave who gets nothing. Under these laws it is morally acceptable for me to break a slave's leg (they won't die within a couple days) and I won't have to compensate them because I own them.
But since God says it I guess you also believe this is OK?

18"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed,19if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.…

There it is right there in bold and underlined. I don't know why you would think I would add it. Now I don't think it says it is perfectly ok to break a slaves leg or anything else. Just like it is not ok to kill anyone. Just because there are instructions of when that occurs, doesn't mean it is perfectly ok to do.

I don't see how those are different. Do you believe that objective morals exist? What about absolute morals, do these exist? Can you give me some examples from each category. Thanks!

Absolute morals would be those that we could not do anything but do them. Objective morals/humans...Absolute moral/God.

Or maybe the explanation could simply explain why humans believe things that are not true? I will get to work on making this case but am just waiting to clear up a few of our other lines of discussion.

Can't wait.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because of the consistent use of they. They, are the people suppressing truth in unrighteousness. So God gives them over to desires and the men (all inclusive term) and women (again all not some) turn to homosexual relationships. Just read the passage, the them being described can not mean all gentiles. I know this is a common reading of the passage but it is clearly incorrect. Paul tells us a lot aboht this group of "them" and those characteristics do not fit will all gentiles.



Time to tap some new sources I guess ... Again this is clearly not the case. Paul is talking to this church and I guess by definition they are new believers. He says (to paraphrase) Now we know that there is only one God, the father and one Lord, Jesus. But not everyone has this knowledge. So the we in that section is the church he is talking to. The everyone is all the people who are not part of his church that don't have the knowledge. What knowledge? The knowledge that there is one God, the father and one Lord, Jesus. So he can't be talking about Christians because by definition they would know that Jesus is Lord and God is the father.

So we are back where we started... Despite your claims to the contrary not everyone knows from the creation of the world that your God exists and is God etc.


All the better to grind at you my dear...
But seriously I am just saying what you seem to believe but without sugar coating it. It's not so much my teeth showing as it is God's character.


Nope, just pointing out that Jesus said to still obey the laws.

Hopefully you get a chance to pump out your next instalment of our super long posts series soon
Did you need me to repost my latest entry or are you OK to look it up?

Hope you are having a good day!

I was responding as you posted this. I'll get back to this later. I need to get ready and go to a soccer match for five year olds. Sounds like fun don't you think?

 

[Athée]

What evidence do you feel shows that God is not necessary for the creation of a universe?

So here is the sequence as I see it.
1. You claim God made the universe (specifically on such a way that his truth is manifest to all)
2. I ask you what evidence you have that God is necessary as an explanation for the universe.
3. You respond with a) a reference to the fine tuning argument (absolu legit response that we should investigate) and b) by asking me what evidence I have that an invisible magic being is not necessary for universe generation.

I would say that we don't seem to need to posit God to explain most things. I don't think I have any hard evidence that could completely take God out of the set of possibilities. As an example we used to think gods made the lightning,now we know better but a believer in those particular gods could just say "yup the science is correct, that is how God chose to create lightning". So even if we do filing d a mechanism for generating universes, you will still be ae to say..."wow isn't God amazing, that he created such a cool mechanism to make his universe ".
So I admit I can't disprove God made the universe. On the flip side you can't seem to prove he did do it either, so I guess we should both just be willing to say. We don't know how it happened and leave it at that. Or you could make your case for proving God did it of course.

I posted about the Romans passage on the other post. I guess He should have signed His work.

I tell my students this all the time.

We were discussing the universe not the life in it. By the way you didn't give me a link to that universe that I asked about. I'd like that model as I've never heard of it I guess.

Really? Shoot I could have sworn we were taking about life. The dangers of long posts I guess. Could you ask your question again for me so I can answer you properly. Sorry

Its your claim, the burden of proof rests with you to show me that Ed exists and does as you claim.

The sequence was:
1. You claimed you had disproved all other possible hypotheses.
2. I offered the ed hypothesis.
3. Instead of demonstrateing that you could disprove it as you originally claimed, you have responded by asking me to prove it.

If you can't disprove the ed hypothesis then you are simply not justified in claiming that you have defeated all the other possibilities. Again all it would take is one teeny, tiny bit of counterfactual evidence that the ed hypothesis could not account for and you can claim victory

Its your claim, the burden of proof rests with you to show me that Ed exists and does as you claim.

See above

Fair enough, what explanation for them would you propose if no minds existed for the laws of logic?

I would say they are properly basic facts.

Whoa there cowboy, I was congratulating you on going further which had nothing to do with me thinking you agreed with me or even that my point was secure. I also never claimed that this woman was the only one living at that time. You are using a great deal of assumptions to accuse me of things I didn't do.

I don't mind being reigned in
If I assumed things it was not my intent. The way I read you response was that 1.you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, the first people, made by God.
2. Even though the science shows that mitochondrial Adam and Eve might or my not have overlapped, you said it was interesting that all of humanity descended from this pair. This statement, coupled with your belief in genesis would imply that you are assuming that they did live at the same time and were the original humans, ancestors to all.
If that is not your view then I apologize, please correct me
If that is your view, then it is simply unsupported by the science. At best it seems the science says, it is possible that the most recent common female and male ancestor of all current humans, coexisted. This is a long way from a confirmation of the Adam and Eve story. Agreed?

Hows that log in your eye there Athee? 1. I never claimed that ME was the first female human. 2. I didn't focus on "this small part of science" you just have assumed this and then accused me of ignoring the rest of the data. 3. Then you ask me to address my objections of all the "relevant experts". Can you see inside of all that smoke from the straw man I just burned?

Cough cough... Rubs eyes to clear smoke only to find them blocked by planks of wood... How did those get in there he wonders.
As I said above feel free to set up the non straw man and I will repspond to that.

I don't believe that Satan is more powerful than God or Satan would have done away with God when he decided to sin and try to take over God's throne. He would not have been thrown out of heaven if he was more powerful than God. Do you think that humans needed Satan to sin? I don't. I believe just as with man God allowed Satan to have choice and Satan's choice was to overtake God. God used Satan's own will and what that would present into God's creation to do God's own will. Now was God not good for allowing evil, if He didn't allow evil would be able to have free will. I don't think so, is it important for us to have free will, I think so. I like to have choices.

Ah, so we are back to the free will defence. On this thread you have said that God does override free will to make his plans work out and that taking babies before they can make free will choices is justified. How then can you say that free will is so important to God? Was God not good for allowing evil? Exactly. I would say no. When you give the toddler a sharp knife so that he gets the chance to have free will about staying himself or others, you are not a good parent. It is even worse though because as human parents we can honestly say that we didn't know kw the future, we didn't know what he would do with that knife. God on the other hand k own exactly what is going to happen. So no God is not good for creating and allowing evil.

The objective principals never do change but they are not absolute in our own character. We can twist them, define them even though we have to live by them. We can abide that murder is wrong, but we can change the definition of murder or the definition of what constitutes a victim of murder. We abide that rape is wrong but we can twist it around and claim that an act of rape wasn't rape because....or that stealing is wrong but we can rationalize what is stealing means and then there is lying, all people think lying is wrong unless it is to save somebody's feeling or life but some can justify it for one reason or another. So everyone believes that murder is wrong no matter what culture, what period anywhere in the world but where we get around this objective principle is to determine what defines murder. Abortion is not murder because the baby hasn't been born for instance.

I am puzzled by this. You seem to be arguing that the label of, to choose an example, murder, is wrong. But that over time the human definition of murder changes. I completely agree. As our morality changes and shifts we change the meaning a of those labels. This shows that there was never any truly objective moral standard to begin with.

How do you know He could have created us perfect without the inclination to sin? What information do you have that provides you with this belief?

This is your claim not mine In response to my objections about gods goodness you claimed that he could not create us without the desire to sin. How do you know this to be true?

I just showed you that statistically that while it is not all, that it would be a majority. He also says: "And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.30"And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last."

So what do you think that means?

It means that those who are on his predestined list come from different parts of the planet, and that some people who are looked at as powerful and as leaders here on earth will find themselves among the least in heaven.

I don't see how this contradicts my very clear demonstration that Jesus himself said many will end up in hell and only a few will find the way to life and heaven.

Looking forward to seeing your case for this. Remember if you do conceed that my reading of Jesus is correct that the next step is to explain why it is a good plan to send most of your image bearers to an eternal punishment that you didn't even build for them (oops, sorry guys, didn't see that coming... Even though I know the future).

I was gave a great deal of information on how many people would be saved and you ignore that and post this? I wonder why?

That was great info and very well done. I just pointed out that it doesn't agree with what Jesus said. You also added in some hypothetical saved numbers but that is fair enough on your world view.

I try to be.

I'm glasshouse they to be a good parent. Does this mean you agree that God doesn't seem to act in a way that you would call good.

If they believe God and didn't do what He told them to do they would not actually believe God was who He was. So it is irrelevant.

Wait a minute, you are saying that if anyone breaks a command of God (in other words, sins) then it proves they never believed God to begin with? Have you ever sinned knowingly against God?

I thought it was pretty obvious but the whole group show that it is by faith everyone was saved.

I think Christians were telling thier own story to make it seem like they were a continuation of the Jewish tradition. The OT seems to disagree, it want belief in a coming messiah that cleansed your sins. It was animal sacrifice.

That doesn't mean that they could not have been saved.

Wait... Are you saying that God has predestined some people to go to heaven and even knows who they are. That he also knows the future and knows who will not be saved... But that he could be mistaken about this. That those he knew would not be saved, might acutely end up saved?

This is just a straw man.

It might be but please explain how it is a strawman, or conceed that God is not so good I guess


Darn have to take a break. Will finish this late tonight.... OK I have a few minutes here...

My worldview is cohesive and based on my experience with God. I know that when things seem bad even in my life that the outcome has always been for the good. On the other hand you have no first hand experience with regard to God in anyway, you lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to aid in your understanding, you hold just as much of a confirmation bias against God as I do for Him and then tell me that I always claim that God has a good purpose behind what seems like a bad thing. While you judge God with the limited information you hold.

This is a decent summary I guess. I am saying that God does all these things that we would call horrendous if any human leader were to do them and your response is, God has given me a personal experience that he is good and trustworthy.
My follow up would be, doesn't that sound a bit like the gangster who commits horrible crimes but then goes home to his family and is a great and loving father?

Yeah, that is what Satan thought too.

Did you just call me Satan? But seriously how is my solution not a better one, or failing that, how is it inconsistent with God?

The evidence is that Hitler and Stalin killed millions upon millions of people. That is not zero evidence.

This is not evidence. You claimed that it is possible that God killed all those people because he knew they were going to be mass murderers. Saying that we have two non-killed examples of mass murderers does not support that point in any way. All you are showing is the in those instances God chose not to kill people who would become mass murderers.

I agree that there are verses that confirm that some predestination exists and so does free will. While I don't think that all of these show predestination, there are those that do.

So predestination is a real thing? God chose ahead of time who he would save? Of God chose you ahead of time to be saved could you free will chose not to?

No. He just gave them instructions about it

So he told them that while they were sining, as long as they did it a certain way it was acceptable to him?

"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed,19if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.…

There it is right there in bold and underlined. I don't know why you would think I would add it. Now I don't think it says it is perfectly ok to break a slaves leg or anything else. Just like it is not ok to kill anyone. Just because there are instructions of when that occurs, doesn't mean it is perfectly ok to do.

Free man scenario:
Non slave argues with another man
Gets hurt, doesn't die.
Consequences: aggressor must pay for the time it takes him to recover.
Note: if he dies as a result of the assault there is a more severe punishment (I don't have the text in front of me but I think it is death right?)

Slave scenarios:

Slave gets a beating
Is injured badly but doesn't die
Punishment... Nothing (not even a requirement to rest him and compensate him while he recovers as was the case for the free man ablve)

Slave gets a beating
Dies within 48 hours - will be avenged (death penalty?)

Slave gets a beating
Dies 55 hours later as a result of internal injuries.
Punishment... Nothing (the salve is property)

So pretty sure these are not equal. Would you want to be a slave under this system? And even if you think (despite all the evidence) that these are equal treatment, do you agree with God that it is OK to own other humans as property as long as you treat them within the rules He described and I have explained for you above?

Absolute morals would be those that we could not do anything but do them. Objective morals/humans...Absolute moral/God.

Ok, I don't think you use those terms the way most philosophers do but now that I know what you are talking about can you give me an example of an Absolute moral?

Can't wait.

Sorry it will have to wait a bit. No time tonight

 

[Athée]

I was responding as you posted this. I'll get back to this later. I need to get ready and go to a soccer match for five year olds. Sounds like fun don't you think?

Yes it does! I am a soccer coach for u-8 girls. Love it, especially the way they all follow the ball like an amoeba at the start of the season!

 

[Athée]

Shoot.

Once. You asked about multiverse models but I think by your response you may have misunderstood what I was saying. You had claimed that solutions to the teleological argument involving multiverse scenarios would still require an initial universe to spawn all the other universes. I said I don't think that is the case. I not sure, I haven't been able to find a model that explicitly states that it requires an initial universe to have been created but also I haven't found a model that says it would not require this.maybe I am just looking in the wrong places.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not free from, sister, free to.

Setting free is always from something, like freeing.

 

[Davian]

The only life that has ever existed and has evidence for it is life coming from life.

That still leaves your religion in a lurch, but that is not my point. You said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter.";

Exactly how were you going to prove that there is no such evidence?

IF you have evidence for life ever coming from non-life then I will concede.

What do you think were in all of those links that I provided, multiple times? Cookie recipes?

Did you make any effort to go through them?

 

[ScottA]

How many years does a person have to seek God before he/she can give up? What if a person prays, reads, converses, all that, but receives no answer?

An "answer" is not required...one need only "believe."

However, do understand...answers come in many forms. The important thing is that you are sincere. If you are, the answer may come in the form of would-be coincidence, things you just know could not be coincidence. It may come as a "chance" meeting...again would-be coincidence. It may come via the spirit of God, an inward visitation (a still, small voice), that can easily be passed off, but personal. Then again, it need not come at all, and still when the light of this life dims, He will appear. But in all the world...there are a multitude of reasons to have hope, to preserver.

Keep knocking.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I know that God doesn't come without being invited first. Have you asked?

I have. Sincerely, as far as I'm aware. But no answer I'm afraid.

I don't know how much you desire to know God. It changes your whole life you know. People assume you are less intelligent for being a Christian. They assume you don't understand fully science and the reality of the world. You have a lot to lose if you chose God.

I can honestly say that I have never once considered the social ramifications of belief and I value truth enough to know that I would not allow this to dissuade me if I really knew God was real. Ignoring the truth would be stupid.

I am giving you the Bible verse that provides the information that is relative to what you are referring to. What makes you think that you are not being blinded by Satan for instance?

I could well be blinded by Satan, but not because (as you suggested) I chose to be.

The whole context is:

"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS..."For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

This part of the passage is discussing the end of days. He says He is going to come. This is very important...HE is there, why would He claim HE would come in the glory of His Father with His angels to Judge mankind? This also says that He would judge mankind then. Putting it in the end of days for certain.

Now the next passage talks about them having a taste of this:

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Then it goes on to show Jesus's transfiguration as fulfillment. When looking up the greek in this passage the word coming is different for the first mention of coming and the second.

If this were in the language we now would use it would go something like this: The soul is the most important element for a man. What good is gaining the whole world if a man loses his soul. What can a man exchange for his soul? In time I will come bringing the Glory of God the Father with His angels and I will judge each man according to his deeds. Honestly, there are some of you standing right here that won't die until you seeing me coming in His kingdom.

Sorry, I don't see where you've supported this claim you're making. You're arguing that all the stuff about coming with angels and whatnot is indeed referring to Judgement day, but the very next line is talking about a completely different event that will take place in a few days. I see nothing between lines 27 and 28 that supports your interpretation that they refer to completely separate events. I don't see how the point about the different greek words provides such support. How does this difference support the notion that everything up until 27 is about Judgement day and suddenly 28 is about the Transfiguration? Please give me the different Greek words with an explanation of why one word should be considered to refer to the second coming and the other to the transfiguration.

Why not? It was an incredible experience. Peter describes it in 2 Pt. 1:16-18 “ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with him on the Holy mountain.”

See above. Not only that Jesus said clearly that He didn't know when the second coming would happen but He knew when He would be transfigured.

So Jesus knew when he was going to be transfigured. This seems to contradict your your interpretation. If he knew that the transfiguration was going to take place in six days, why phrase it in such a way that it seems like something a long way off? If I said to you "There are some reading this post who will not die before they witness my greatest achievement," would you assume I was talking about something that I know is going to happen six days from now? Not a rhetorical question, so I look forward to your answer.

I believe it is the generation that witnessed Israel becoming a nation. That generation will be the one that will not all die out before Christ returns.

So the second coming will happen before everyone alive on May 14, 1948 dies?

Also, you haven't supported this interpretation. Do you have any scriptural evidence that when Jesus says "this generation will not pass away," he is really referring to a generation a couple thousand years in the future? Again, don't you think that would be misleading for the people whom he is addressing?

I don't think that Pharaoh's will really changed. He would have softened enough to let the Jews go but he still didn't change his mind about God. So I don't really believe that Pharaoh's will changed, he didn't change his mind in regard to God, He just would have given in.

Also, you assume that the experiences I've had are subtle but that is not the case. Some have been very much like the ones that I think you are looking for.

That's not relevant to the point being made. You have agreed that Pharaoh could not have softened his heart in the moment God wanted it hardened, so his free will in that moment was subverted. I'm suggesting a similarly temporary subversion of free will in order to save an otherwise unsaveable soul. You didn't actually offer any counterargument to this proposal so I assume that you have none. I will however paste it below for your convenience in case you want to take another look at it:

I'm saying he could temporarily override our free will to force us for an instant to know he exists, feel his transformative love and his glory. Thereafter the person could write it off as a hallucination or decide not to turn to God because he asks too much of them etc. They still get to choose whether or not to devote their lives to God, except now there's actually a possibility that they will chose God.

Life to you is this life, only this life and once this life is over there is nothing else. I understand your desperation to the point of forcing your will on another. I just really don't know what I would do.

So you would perhaps choose not to save your child because you expect to see them in the afterlife? That strikes me as an incredibly alarming attitude, but that's your prerogative. What if you knew that for some reason this incorrect belief your child held so sincerely would result in true death, no second chances in the afterlife?

Will you? If God is pouring out His wrath will you accept Him or would your anger at His actions cement your will against Him? In the Bible it says that even though people will know that it is God that is pouring out His wrath they still don't accept Him. Yet, it also says that so many people do turn to God that their numbers are huge. So maybe you'll be a tribulation saint, who knows.

I was not a fan of Stephen Harper, our last Prime Minister, but I would still recognize his power and authority. Similarly I would be forced to acknowledge God's existence and authority. As I said, I'm interested in truth,.

I was being flippant as well so no problem.

So the lack of evidence for faeries cannot seriously be considered to support an inference that faeries existed but were wiped out, correct?

No, I am not saying that each and every person would cause mass slaughter, I was using that as an example. Evil has many levels. I would suppose you would agree?

I agree that evil has many levels. I disagree with the claim that a uniformly and unavoidably evil population existed because there is no evidence of such a population anywhere. As Athée has pointed out, this sounds a lot like history being written by the victors who are trying to make their genocidal actions seem righteous.

That is evidence, all our experiences are evidence of some kind or other. Yes, I believe due to faith using the experience I have of God that there must be a very good reason behind things that might seem to be "not good".

Exactly, yes. You believe that your god has a good reason for apparent atrocities even if you can't think of one that comports with external evidence. That's in contrast to science wherein conclusions must comport with evidence external to your own beliefs on the subject.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Our thoughts are limited to our physical brains. As physical beings we do not have unlimited access to complete knowledge. Without complete knowledge we can't determine what our actions will cause for others.

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

God is righteousness and perfectness. It is not an attribute that He could create us with as it is His nature not attributes that come from His character or nature. They are what God is.

Scripture stating that "there is none righteous" simply gives us the current state of humanity; it doesn't address the ability of God to create us in a certain way. This does not support the assertion that a created being can't be sinless. Wasn't Jesus fully man and fully God? Wasn't he therefore a fully created being who was also sinless? Or was the fully god part sinless while the fully man part was sinful?

And I think your support for omniscience being necessary for sinlessness doesn't fit with your statement that God's sinlessness an attribute of his nature, not something that comes from his nature. If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

I felt a nudging from God that I needed to look at this again. What I am finding is that predestination and free will choice are both used in the Bible. So I can't say definitively a certainty in my answer to you but what I am finding in the Bible is that there are people that God knew would do evil and He has placed them in certain places in history to fulfill His purposes. For instance, Pharaoh. God knew that this soul would be evil no matter what world, place in history or time He would live; so He put Him where He would be used for His purpose. He doesn't take away their wills but allows for their wills to use for His own purposes in History. For instance Judas. He knew that he would do evil in any world, whatever place in history, or time that he lived so God placed Him in the place in History to allow His evil to work for God's plan. Yet, there are those that He knew would always choose God in any world, any place in history and in any time so He put them in the places where this would be used for His purposes. They still had the choice but God knew before hand what they would chose and placed them for His own purposes where they ended up. They still had the choice, Paul for instance, had the choice to go on killing Christians but He chose to follow Christ.

So it served God's purpose to create an entire planet of souls that he knew beforehand would always choose evil and then kill them all and damn their souls. How does that fit with any reasonable conception of love?

I don't know if this is the case or not. I'm in instruction mode.

Neat. I've never met a Christian who didn't profess to know that God is omniscient.

They have no will against or for God when they are below a certain age. So their will is not against God nor for Him. So it doesn't violate them being for Him nor against Him. I don't know any way to make it clearer.

You're arguing that their free will is not violated because they are too young to be either for or against God, correct? This doesn't really answer the question though. If free will in this context is making a choice for or against God, why does it not violate free will to take that choice away?

If I were deciding who to vote in an election and I hadn't yet made a choice it would be a violation of my right to choose if one of the candidates were to cast my vote for me.

Matthew 18:1
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child, and had him stand among them.
3 And he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.”


Jesus said that if you receive a child in his name, you receive him and the one who sent him.
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." (Mark 9:37)

So as you see Jesus believes that children are so important that we receive Him if we receive a child.

Children are a gift from God, so Jesus does not expect us to put our children away from us at all. We are to cherish them as much as we cherish Him.

So yes, Jesus does say that we should love our children to the same degree (although in a different way) that we love him. Correct?

If it is possible at all, and there is evidence that could suggest that possibility, then why would you claim it is nowhere near as parsimonious they evolved only once? While you can accuse me of using my bias to conclude that the evidence supports my belief, I can equally do so to you. There is no conceivable evidence that prohibits the plant life that was producing oxygen very early on (before the Cambrian) did not evolve into angiosperms and then be wiped out. There are millions upon millions of years that they had to evolve whereas there is a relative short time span when we see them evolving later on.

First of all we have a good fossil record beginning with the Cambrian. We don't have much at all of a fossil record before the Cambrian. We know that during the time where the plants would be evolving there were events that could very easily wiped out whatever life was present during that time. That is not the case with later periods.

Parsimony is about making the fewest unsupported assumptions possible. The conclusion that angiosperms evolved in the Mesozoic is based on the fact that their fossil record begins there and there is no evidence of them prior to that and also their molecular clocks give a similar age. Your conclusion is based on the existence of plants in the Precambrian and you have added the following assumptions:
1. that the entire suite of angiosperm traits evolved hundreds of millions of years before there is any fossil evidence for them
2. They went extinct
3. They re-evolved that entire suite of angiosperm traits

You see the difference? That's why your position is less parsimonious. My conclusion works from the facts of the fossil record, yours requires several assumptions based on a void in the fossil record.

If you use this reasoning then there are any number of reasons why you don't see any evidence of my Paleozoic horses. They could have lived in forests where fossilization is rare. They could have been endemic to a single, limited area which did not make it into the fossil record. Perhaps their bones decayed more quickly than normal and were never preserved. These things are all possible, but they are less parsimonious than concluding that horses didn't evolve until the Cenozoic.

Also, you are profoundly mistaken in saying that there were no events in the Cambrian and onward that could have "wiped out whatever life was present". There have been five major mass extinctions since then, including the one at the end of the Permian which killed of 70% of terrestrial vertebrates (and 96% of marine organisms!). Any one of these extinction events could have killed off my horses.

That was my answer, my answer is in bold:

Do we mention every single insect in our science books when we say insects appear in the Devonian? Do we mention every animal in our science books when we say animals first appear in the Cambrian?
The point was to give a chronological order in which life came into existence. Which should be considered pretty amazing considering that at the time no such evidence of that happening existed.

Were there whales in the Cambrian? How about Mosasaurs, Ichthyosaurs?
My point with this question above was very significant. I believe the Genesis Narrative gives us the same time frames as we call the Cambrian and so forth. So the day where it says:

And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
This is taking about the Paleozoic through the Mesozoic. It doesn't include all life during that period but ends in birds to give us the time span.

the Paleozoic through the Mesozoic does include the dinosaurs. Whales are not mentioned but they would come in with the next day. The next day is what we call the Age of Mammals.

Just like Cambrian doesn't have all marine life to ever live, neither does the Genesis record. See above. However, every living creature that existed during the time period called the Cambrian was EVERY living creature that lived in that time period. Just the same as cattle not appearing in the Cambrian, we would see cattle on this day.


I explained above.

But you haven't supported your answer. You say that Genesis is just giving an overview of the order but you haven't given any reasoning to support this. You have explained what you think Genesis is saying, but you have not supplied even a single piece of scripture that supports your interpretation. You have not explained how any reasonable reading of the words "every living thing" in the water can be taken to exclude things that live in the water. The closest you have come is to say that "every living thing" in the water really means every living thing in the water during the Cambrian, an interpretation which is entirely unsupported in the scripture.

Please explain why "every living thing" in the water only applies to the Cambrian fauna. Don't simply assert that it does, give me something from the scripture that suggests "every" doesn't mean "every".

 

[Davian]

An "answer" is not required...one need only "believe."

However, do understand...answers come in many forms. The important thing is that you are sincere. If you are, the answer may come in the form of would-be coincidence, things you just know could not be coincidence.

How would you know that, and that you have not simply imagined it?

 

[Davian]

I know that God doesn't come without being invited first. Have you asked?

Strange. I can only imagine feeling silly proffering an invitation to a fictional character.

 

[HitchSlap]

Setting free is always from something, like freeing.

Like freedom from religion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Strange. I can only imagine feeling silly proffering an invitation to a fictional character.

Yes, Davian I can see that would be a problem for you.