By Ryan Hemelaar
A lot of people ask: 'How do I know whether Heaven and Hell really exists?' Well, there are two methods to rationally prove the existence of Heaven and Hell, and how one enters Heaven. This in turn proves why Christianity in particular is the only religion that is true.
(1). This method relies on the Moral Argument for God's Existence. Please read that argument to know what it is, if you are unfamiliar with it.
The moral argument not only proves God, but also proves that God is good. So that when a good God looks down on this Earth and sees all these horrible atrocities occurring (like people murdering and raping), since He is good, He cannot turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed. And since it seems justice is not always carried out on this Earth, it must happen after we die. Therefore, there must be a place of punishment after we die (we call that Hell) and a place of no punishment (we call that Heaven). But a good judge won't just punish murderers and rapists, He'll have to punish all acts of injustice, even thieving and lying.
So it seems that we've all done at least something wrong in our life (either by lying, stealing, lusting, etc), so that means we are deserving of going to Hell. And the good deeds that we do don't merit us anything in front of a good judge, because a good judge would never accept a bribe. Just like if you murder somebody, you can't say to the judge, "I admit I murdered that person, but look at the good works I've done - helping the poor, working for charities. Can you let me go?" If the judge were to let the criminal go free, He would be a corrupt judge. A good judge cannot be corrupt.
So it seems we have no hope of getting to Heaven. This is where Christianity steps in as being in a league of its own. For Christianity says that 2000 years ago, Jesus came down and died on the cross. He died to pay the penalty for our sins that we deserve in Hell, He can take it on the cross for us. That way, God's justice is satisfied and we can go to Heaven when we die. But He doesn't automatically apply it to everyone, you must do two things. Firstly, you must trust that the only reason why you will get to Heaven is that Jesus died on the cross for you, that means that you don't trust in your good works or own morality to get you to Heaven, but only in Jesus' death. Secondly, out of gratitude for what Jesus' has done for you, you will strive to turn from your lifestyle of sinning. If you do those two things, you will go to Heaven when you die.
(2). The second method of proving the existence of Heaven and Hell relies on the Argument for the Resurrection.
This argument proves that Jesus rose from the dead and therefore, that is an authentication to the things that Jesus was teaching. Jesus taught that when you die you will be judged by God and be sent to either Heaven or Hell. Therefore, there is an afterlife. And Jesus taught that how one gets to Heaven is the same what is written above.
So the question is now, since rationally there must be a God, an afterlife, and Christianity is true, what will be your response? If you repent (turn from your lifestyle of sinning) and trust in Christ's death on the cross, you will go to Heaven when you die.
1. So God, with foreknowledge, creates a world full of evil and then throws the evil person in Hell and you think that makes him good? Huh. To my mind, he is the creator of suffering - the ultimate source of the pain here and the hereafter. For God to imagine all that evil, then he must be equally evil.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you look at it from the point of view of a person within the world. Try looking from God's point of view. After all, thats what your imaginary friend supposedly did.
So, that argument is trash.
2. The argument for the resurrection does not actually make historical, physical or logical sense. Of course, that is from the perspective of someone that isn't a believer. But that's the trick isn't it.
Conclusion: your arguments only make sense to you because you believe in their conclusions. It is nothing more than circular reasoning. As such it can be dismissed summarily.
I would love to spend more time dealing with them, but I am quite busy atm.
"So God, with foreknowledge, creates a world full of evil and then throws the evil person in Hell and you think that makes him good?"
ReplyDeleteNo, God originally created the world perfect - with no death, suffering, disease, etc. But God set laws, and said that if a person breaks those laws, they will be sent to an eternal Hell. People broke those laws, so the just thing to do is for God to carry out justice and give them the punishment they deserve, Hell. But He is also so loving that He died on the cross for those who would repent and trust in Christ.
So Alex, you are yet to actually refute my first argument at all.
"The argument for the resurrection does not actually make historical, physical or logical sense."
Can you actually back up that assertion, Alex? Or is it a rejection because the conclusion to the argument does not agree with your presupposition?
As much as I'm not a great fan of the way CASE dismissed these arguments, I have to agree that they are extreme circular reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just a side note, why does the punishment and reward have to be geographical (you refer to a 'place of no punishment' and 'place of punishment'). Why not an action etc?
Now to my main arguments against this moral thingy (I'll state them briefly -
- We have levels of good and bad, and a just and good judge would not sentence everyone to the same punishment.
- If you take the Calvinist view (which I know you do, Ryan) then God has control over whether you are saved or not, so you ultimately have no control over your destiny. This 'limited grace' seems at odds with the main message of God being all powerful and all loving - if He is good and loves all his children He would save them all. This is the biggest one for me, and I am yet to find anyone that can explain the contradiction.
"I have to agree that they are extreme circular reasoning."
ReplyDeleteCan you prove that assertion, Marty? Are you not doing the exact same thing CASE did?
"why does the punishment and reward have to be geographical"
Well the point remains the same regardless, you will either be punished or not punished.
"We have levels of good and bad, and a just and good judge would not sentence everyone to the same punishment."
I agree, and that is why God will not punish a mass-murder the same as someone who has maybe only lied. According to the amount of sins you've done, the more punishment you'll receive.
"so you ultimately have no control over your destiny."
From God's perspective, yes.
"This 'limited grace' seems at odds...if He is good and loves all his children He would save them all."
God is good, but it doesn't logically follow that He therefore must love everyone. For example, if a man is coming up to you with a knife and is about to stab you to death, would you say, "I love you, come and stab me?" Of course not, you would even maybe hate them. But if not hatred, it wouldn't be the same level of love as you would have for your mother or someone else you really love.
So in the same way, God has a general love for the whole of mankind, but has a specific love for those whom He chose to salvation. While those whom God has not elected, God has a specific hatred toward them (but not withdrawing His general love toward them), because they have sinned and rebelled against God.
So therefore, that apparent contradiction is resolved. Moreover, God is under no obligation to save anybody.
I completely agree that God has no obligation to save anybody, my point is He is not consistent, thus not just.
ReplyDeleteAs we have all sinned and turned away from Him, there is no relative merit in any one person in His eyes. As we are not redeemed through any action of our own, His choice is arbitrary. I have used the analogy of the teacher many times before, I'm sure you see it. The teacher teaches only a select few, even though He has the power to teach all. You cannot call such behaviour just.
I am unfamiliar with this general love as opposed to specific love, but it seems to come down to the same thing. By your analogy - Everyone has attacked God, but He loves some and hates some. Its arbitrary. And unnecessary.
"His choice is arbitrary."
ReplyDeleteHis choice is based on His own will. That doesn't make His choice bad, for would not an omniscient being know what is best?
"The teacher teaches only a select few, even though He has the power to teach all. You cannot call such behaviour just."
Well firstly, that analogy is not equivalent. For teachers are almost always under obligation to teach their students, and so to not teach all would be dishonest and not just. But God is under no obligation to save anybody. So an equivalent example could be a person who has students who want free tutoring after school. So the person agrees to provide free tutoring to a few students. Then all of the students' friends decide they want free tutoring as well. So they ask the tutor, and he says no. It is not unjust for the tutor to say no to the other students, because he is under no obligation to provide free tutoring for anybody.
So therefore, God is not unjust.
"Then all of the students' friends decide they want free tutoring as well."
ReplyDeleteFirstly this isn't quite fitting, He selected the 1st lot of students Himself, they did not ask (indeed, they cannot).
And if you are using that analogy, then you come to another one that I was discussing with a friend recently on philanthropy. Say a millionaire saves a village in Africa (by providing funding for food, healthcare etc). Can they be considered moral while still having enough money to save a second village? They are under no obligation to do so, but I think we can agree that if it is within their means they should try to help.
From this analogy, given God's help is limitless, there is no reason why He shouldn't help everyone.
"His choice is based on His own will."
Which would tend to suggest it would be kind and forgiving, does God not have infinite grace? And the fact that it is God's choice (your version of God) does not make it immune to reason or criticism. As God is meant to be the perfect being, then yes His choice would be just, but there are examples of the God of the Bible displaying negative character traits (jealousy as opposed to trust).
On a completely different tangent, I have a question regarding evangelism. If as a calvinist you believe that it is God and God only that turns man to follow Him, what is the point of telling ppl about God? Just saying that within context it seems to make little sense.
"They are under no obligation to do so, but I think we can agree that if it is within their means they should try to help."
ReplyDeleteThey can if they want, but they are not unjust if they don't. But again, this analogy falls down in the fact people don't deserve anything, and since the millionaire doesn't really own the money he possesses (all a gift of God), he should not be greedy and should share his God-given money. This is because he is under obligation to God to use the money the way God wants him to use it. But God is totally under no obligation to save anybody. So therefore, He is not unjust if He does not save all or even anybody. It's only in His mercy that He chose to save some.
"From this analogy, given God's help is limitless, there is no reason why He shouldn't help everyone."
The question should really be asked, why does God save anybody? We've rebelled against Him, slandered His name, put Him to death on the cross, and natually we don't want to turn back to Him. It's really amazing that He even chose to save some!
"Which would tend to suggest it would be kind and forgiving, does God not have infinite grace?"
He provides limitless grace to cover all of the sins of those He has elected to salvation. But He does not provide that to everyone, nor is He required to do so to remain good or just. He is merciful, but not merciful to all.
"God of the Bible displaying negative character traits"
Jealously isn't necessarily always a bad character trait, because God has every right to be jealous when people worship other things as their god, etc. As God is the only one who is worthy to be worshiped, when people do something contrary to that, they are doing something sinful.
"If as a calvinist you believe that it is God and God only that turns man to follow Him, what is the point of telling ppl about God?"
Because we can be the means to God's end of Him saving somebody. God could use us as the way that person hears the gospel and then believes. I am very thankful that the responsiblilty is not on me to change a person's wicked heart to love God because I would have no chance that that would ever occur. Instead, the conversion is completely a work of God, that is why He'll receive 100% of the glory when a person gets saved.
Cheers marty - love you too.
ReplyDeleteRyan - if God holds back judgement against certain people because they love Gods son then he is not just, he is actually corrupt.
Doesn't matter anyway, this is like asking who would win in a lightsaber battle between mace windu and yoda - arguing about hypothetical events in a fictional context.
"if God holds back judgement against certain people because they love Gods son then he is not just, he is actually corrupt."
ReplyDeleteNo, He would only be corrupt if He held back judgment on them and no one else paid their fine for them. That is what happens in pretty much every other religion. But justice is not served that way. That is why in Christianity, God sent the sinless Jesus to pay the fine on the cross for those whom God has chosen for salvation. But a person must repent (turn from lifestyle of sin) and trust that Christ died on the cross for their sins to be saved. And if they genuinely do that, that is evidence that Christ died on the cross for them.
Doesn't matter anyway...arguing about hypothetical events in a fictional context.
ReplyDeleteHahaha - Alex we know that you disbelieve in God, but the funnies asside you need to provide some backing for the above thought beyond personal incredulity. Thus far you've failed on that with regard to teleology, morality, history and literature.
I'd go as far as to say you have no idea what or who you are as far as grounding in your philosophy goes. You are inconsistent in the extreme when it comes to your philosophy. You claim there is only subjective evolutionary morals and yet have no grounds. You claim you've come from a long evolutionary chain yet you cannot account for your own mind let alone the impossible (birds) and unchanging (insects) in the "evolved" natural world. You claim that the bible is all myth yet only quote the crackpots and underqualified when it comes to your historical grounds.
Is it lonely arguing with yourself and all apparent evidence for truth Alex?
Just as a small addition to Ryan's thorough arguementation thus far. God began by giving all men and women life. Since then He has showered countless blessings on even the least fortunate of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is the way God thinks of it; but if you were to measure out the good given verses the bad in this life, bad things would be hugely outweighed by the good.
Historically, there is no certain evidence for the ressurection. The earliest primary material dates from 125AD and was written by the zealous accolytes of the christian cause. We have no birth certificate, death certificate or contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, the bible is clearly historically innaccurate - in particular, the dating of the birth of jesus and the governor Quinnirus in Luke. Direct evidence that the Bible was a late invention and not accurate.
ReplyDeletePhysically, there is no known method for re-annimating a body after 3 days. Accordingly, unless you can show same then we can say it does not make physical sense - unless of course, you believe in magic (but if you do, then why don't you believe in fairies and lepprecauns).
Logically, a just God must punish each according to his crime. To accept a payment from someone else and not mete out the proper punishment is technically corrupt. Justice is accurate and targetted to the guilty party. If a man is found guilty of murder then another person cannot do his time in jail. Hence, the concept of ressurection covering "cost of sin" is not logical (PS: I have a law degree and degree in criminology/justice studies. I have won that argument).
Is it lonely arguing with yourself and all apparent evidence for truth Alex?
If you didn't put forward the position of God then I wouldn't argue about it. I am trying to help you to overcome a life-dibilitating mental disease (well, ryan more than David - I think DG is lost). I can understand that you deny me and turn me away - this is a long and difficult treatment, but you will thank me one day ;)
Historically, there is no certain evidence for the ressurection. The earliest primary material dates from 125AD and was written by the zealous accolytes of the christian cause.
ReplyDeleteAlex, you seem to think that the historical reports in the gospel and the rest of the New Testament are wrong simply because they were written by people who were Christians. But that is not a legitimate reason to dismiss them, just like World War 2 historians write about World War 2 and they even believe that World War 2 occurred. Is that a reason to dismiss it? Of course not.
A historical account is not guilty of fabrication unless it can be proven that it is fabricated. But you are yet to do that.
Moreover, scholars say that the first written document proclaiming Jesus' resurrection was 1 Corinthians - which some say was written within two years after Jesus' death. The relevant part is in chapter 15, and that passage gives good evidence that what Paul quoted was an early Christian creed. So His resurrection was definitely proclaimed immediately after His death.
"We have no birth certificate, death certificate or contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus."
The existence of Jesus is not majorly disputed today by contemporary historians, as not only do we have the New Testament writers themselves provide various historical accounts of Jesus, even non-Christian sources write about him (anti-Christian as well). Note the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Phlegan, Celsus, and so on.
I even posted a video on this subject a little while back.
"in particular, the dating of the birth of jesus and the governor Quinnirus in Luke."
Assertion after assertion Alex. But you are yet to back any single one of them up! You sure are the king irrationality if you cannot back up anything you believe!
"Physically, there is no known method for re-annimating a body after 3 days."
Because it was not simply an animation of a body living, Jesus had physically come back to life. Not naturally, but because Jesus rose Him back to life.
"To accept a payment from someone else and not mete out the proper punishment is technically corrupt."
Not in the case when the punishment is a fine to be paid. The law is not concerned about how one gets the money to pay the fine (as long as another law is not broken), but only that the fine is paid. So if you have a speeding fine, you can ask your parents for money in order to pay the fine for your speeding.
In the same way, the Bible describes the punishment for our sin is a fine...and that fine is death. It's not x amount of time in Hell, or x amount of punishment in Hell, it's death. A person will be in Hell forever though, because in there they will be constantly dying, but never fully die so thus they will never fully pay their fine for their sins. But Jesus can pay it for us on the cross (because He's sinless), if we repent and trust that He died to pay for our sins.
Moreover, scholars say that the first written document proclaiming Jesus' resurrection was 1 Corinthians - which some say was written within two years after Jesus' death. The relevant part is in chapter 15, and that passage gives good evidence that what Paul quoted was an early Christian creed. So His resurrection was definitely proclaimed immediately after His death.
ReplyDeleteIf you wrote down the scientologist creed within 2 years of L Ron Hubbard giving it - does that make it true? I stand by my comment that there is no primary evidence for Jesus nor his ressurection.
From a scholarly point of view. The records of Paul are all facsimile - in other words, we do not have his original materials, if any. 1 Corinthians makes very little mention of any details of Jesus. Furthermore, Paul supposedly writes those letters in about 54AD - at least 20 years after Jesus's supposed. Paul also never met Jesus in the flesh.
For all these reasons, Corinthians is not primary nor reliable evidence of Jesus's existence.
Note the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Phlegan, Celsus, and so on
Lol - Tacitus wrote in 68AD, his Annals were intended to educate Romans on Jewish history (a colony of Rome) - he spends 2 lines on Jesus and replays materials provided by early christians. He does not actually mention Jesus by name. Tacitus did not meet Jesus in the flesh.
Josephus - the Antiquities of the Jews written in 93AD is a supposedly definitive volume on Jewish History (running to some 20 books) in which he writes two lines about Jesus. Josephus did not meet Jesus in the flesh. The writer Origen in Testimonium in the year 240 comments that Josephus does not refer to Jesus in his Antiquities. The inserted lines are widely considered to be a forgery inserted by Christian monks.
Suetonius, who wrote in the second century, made reference to unrest among the Jews of Rome under Claudius caused by "instigator Chrestus".[73] This has sometimes been identified with Jesus Christ, though in this case it must refer to indirect posthumous effects and gives no biographical information. Critics argue that "Chrestus" was in fact very common Greek name and may have been a person of that name living under Claudius rather than a misspelling of Christ. Also it is pointed out that Suetonius refers to Jews not Christians in this passage, even though in his Life of Nero he shows some knowledge of the sect's existence, indicating that "Chrestus" was not "Christus".[74]
The Babylonian Talmud contains several references to the name Yeshu that have been traditionally identified with Jesus of Nazareth. However, these same passages have been used to show that the biblical Jesus is based upon an earlier figure who lived about 100 BCE. Furthermore, tradition has the Babylonian Talmud being compiled in the late third to early fourth century CE, limiting its value to determining events of the 1st century CE.
Pliny the Younger - if I recall, says that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, Pantera, and generally asserts negative statements about him. This was fairly common during this era in Rome because of the negativity that Christians had brought to Roman life.
So, at the end of all that, there is:-
1. No actual, physical evidence for Jesus or the Ressurection;
2. No reliable, contemporary written accounts of Jesus or the ressurection.
Your faith makes you think things that do not exist do exist and vice versa.
"in particular, the dating of the birth of jesus and the governor Quinnirus in Luke."
ReplyDeleteAssertion after assertion Alex. But you are yet to back any single one of them up! You sure are the king irrationality if you cannot back up anything you believe!
The usual biblical interpretation and timeline states Jesus birth in around 4 BC. Luke states Jesus parents return to Bethlehem for a census was in the time of Quinnirus, governor of Syria. Quinnirus is recorded in the Roman records as being governor in 6AD - furthermore, there are no records of him requiring a census of Judea or Israel. Such a historical error would not be made by contemporaries - it was a later invention.
"Physically, there is no known method for re-annimating a body after 3 days."
Because it was not simply an animation of a body living, Jesus had physically come back to life. Not naturally, but because Jesus rose Him back to life.
Semantics aside - unless you can show how a person is physically brought back to life then you are believing in "magic" - fairies and lepprecauns accordingly.
"To accept a payment from someone else and not mete out the proper punishment is technically corrupt."
Not in the case when the punishment is a fine to be paid. The law is not concerned about how one gets the money to pay the fine (as long as another law is not broken), but only that the fine is paid. So if you have a speeding fine, you can ask your parents for money in order to pay the fine for your speeding.
In the same way, the Bible describes the punishment for our sin is a fine...and that fine is death. It's not x amount of time in Hell, or x amount of punishment in Hell, it's death. A person will be in Hell forever though, because in there they will be constantly dying, but never fully die so thus they will never fully pay their fine for their sins. But Jesus can pay it for us on the cross (because He's sinless), if we repent and trust that He died to pay for our sins.
I think you miss the point. A just judge will derive justice from the person who is guilty. A just judge does not worry about whether some penalty has been served - he cares about who has paid it. That is the meaning of justice, it is:-
1. Equal to the crime;
2. Enforced on the guilty party.
The insistence of justice being only the acquisition of punishment without reference to the person punished is false and corrupt.
You have much to learn about justice.
Good stuff on justice Alex, said exactly what I would like to say but couldn't find the right words for.
ReplyDelete"unchanging (insects) in the "evolved" natural world"
I'd like to know why unchanging nature is a problem to the theory of evolution. If the selection pressures upon a species do not change, then it will remain unchanged, whats the problem?
Seeing as Ryan is dealing currently with King Irrationallity I'll answer just your question Marty.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with insects is that they arrise fully formed with multiple highly complex systems in place around the cabrian times in the geological record and remain unchanged since then. This is a problem for evolution for the following reasons:
1. There is an almost flawless fossil record of insects in both amber and also stone fossils. So good that entomologists comment that some look like they are freshly mounted - so there is no space for speculation and extrapolation.
2. These insects arrose without precursor in a "time" when many should not even exist (like bird lice arrising when their host - birds had not "evolved yet")
3. All of them posess complex traits from the begining that are so complex that they would have theoretically taken millions of years to evolve (compound eyes, trabecular respiration, wings folded/unfolded)
4. The world has changed substantially since the cambrian times according to evolutionary theory - why then do the insects remain static?
As Alex is so fond of saying, natural selection changes populations and according to theory over millions of years substantially changes creatures from one species to another more complex species. Static population to the extent of insects (ie NO CHANGE) contradicts what Alex and other evolutionary faithful claim. There should be at least some change over this time, seeing the record is so good that change should be seen easily. Oddly enough there is no change!
Also there is the problem of complex organs like wings. The insect wing joint is so complex that evolutionary entomologists say that it could have only arrisen once. Now insects arrive fully formed in the cambrian (along with many other species but that is another problem), evolutionists then claim (with no evidence to support them) that insects must have then diverged some time in the silurian.
(If I'm not much mistaken that would mean that we'd have flying insects evolving in a time when there was not much life outside the oceans. That is in theory.)
Why then do we have such a change? Insects that by all understanding of evolution should only change slowly suddenly go from being unable to be recorded in rock and amber to suddenly when in full "modern" form become fossilisable. It realy is stretching credulity to say that "well thats just how it happened" when common sense would say that they should have been recorded prior in a transitional series. Unless there is a reason they arose that way - ie they were made that way and have not changed since because they were designed to remain that way.
BTW Alex - you are fond of implying or accusing Christians of believing in magic. What magic - sorry evolutionary science, explains this one?
Thanks for your explanation David, I would like to have a look at the paper/s that you sourced this from (not doubting, just interested).
ReplyDeleteAs to the how, I wish I was a entomological palentologist and could account for this, but this is a little far out of my field (2nd year science doing mostly medical type stuff). I'll have a look at your stuff, and then go on a hunt, I'd like to know.
In return, I present a question I've been thinking about with regard to ID (specifically creationist) theory. It is said that there existed 'kinds', which then diverged into the seperate species we know today. If this is so, where did they obtain the diversity of genetic material required to speciate so rapidly and completely?
This ties into the arrival of humans in their current forms - how did we get the no. of alleles we have for different traits from a single pair within a biblical time frame? (Its getting late and I need to get to bed but off the top of my head the most diverse is around 19 alleles for a single trait, among the Kalahari alone.)
Not much time right now Marty but here is one of the papers:
ReplyDeletehttp://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_91-97.pdf
Yes he is a creationist but put that to one side and consider the science first. I hope you can be more objective than many other evolutionists when it comes to ID scientists.
Re the rest of your post - I'll get back to you.
David, I have no respect for your understanding of evolution. I mean, I now you are a vet and all, but you have no understanding of evolution or evolutionary biology, as shown by:-
ReplyDelete2. These insects arrose without precursor in a "time" when many should not even exist (like bird lice arrising when their host - birds had not "evolved yet")
Lol, you assume that "bird lice" could not have subsisted some other way prior to the existence of birds. Evolution and natural selection only dictates that they will fit within a more specialised niche if it is likely to increase survival and reproduction. Nothing states that "bird lice" can only live on "birds".
Static population to the extent of insects (ie NO CHANGE) contradicts what Alex and other evolutionary faithful claim. There should be at least some change over this time, seeing the record is so good that change should be seen easily. Oddly enough there is no change!
Static populations will remain so long as there is a positive survival and reproduction chance for members of that species, indefinitely. There may be mutations, but unless they somehow offer an advantage, they won't subsume the previous population.
BTW Alex - you are fond of implying or accusing Christians of believing in magic. What magic - sorry evolutionary science, explains this one?
Im not sure exactly which "one" you are referring to there. If you are referring to insect evolution, I do point out that the fossil record does show more primitive insects at earlier periods - something that confirms evolutionary theory and contradicts the existence of a single contemporaneous design event.
Further, (Prof) Michael Ruse has previously noted with respect to insects that their specialised morphology and short reproductive cycle increases potential change over time and thus, the existence of transitional forms are less likely to be "captured" in the fossil record. Nonetheless, we have a significant fossil record that does support their evolution over time. Finally, with respect to insect wings, I think you will find the common theory is that they were useful vestigal lungs of larval stage insects that were retained because of their usefulness and eventually evolved into their current form. Note Mayfly morphology in this respect.
Good reply Alex, I was afraid I was going to have to look through papers and do resarch in my holidays to find the stuff against.
ReplyDeleteWhile we seem to be on evolution, and since David seems to know pretty much where he's coming from, is there anywhere I can find a description of ID theory?
Marty
ReplyDeleteLook up the case Kimlitzer v Dover School Board ("Dover School Board" decision). It is a US case, but it extensively discusses the development and meaning of Intelligent Design (and correctly shows, imho, that it is not science).
fossil record does show more primitive insects at earlier periods - something that confirms evolutionary theory
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, we have a significant fossil record that does support their evolution over time.
Which ones would they be Alex? You are very fond of assertions, but as I have shown in regards your posts on birds they are never as certain and solid as you make out. In fact your last objections didn't even address the issue that I raised. So please bring out some of these definite transitional forms.
Nothing states that "bird lice" can only live on "birds".
Nothing other than what you as an evolutionist assume all the time. Ie that what is seen now in the natural world is a fair indicator of what has been. It is more than reasonable to assume that if a species is morphologically identical to what is seen today, then it's lifestyle and behaviour would likewise be the same. So tell me oh wise one, seeing I have no understanding, what where these air breathing parasites with legs specialised to holding feathers living on during the cambrian period? If you cant point out a valid one and back it with some science my point stands.
Static populations will remain so long as there is a positive survival and reproduction chance for members of that species, indefinitely.
This is where I laugh now Alex. Two points you bring out, one is that information adding mutations occur continuously and selection pressures change according to environmental factors. In theory these two points scuttle your above thought even if the first is not proven to be true in practise. The world has changed significantly since cambrian times Alex, in fact they have changed significantly since Jurassic times. So in theory quite the opposite to what you claim should be the case, we should see significant change in the insect populations including new species and transition to those species as the environment changes.
....insect wings, I think you will find the common theory is that they were useful vestigal lungs of larval stage insects...
That really underlines it there doesn't it Alex. Theory. There is no clear presence of transition to flight in the forms you quoted, all we have are laval mayflies and the like and fully fledged adult flying insects with wings. The theory lacks evidence and also fails to account for the complexties required to produce insect flight, a highly complex neural system, a articular joint with the body, 30 odd individual muscles, and wings that are so highly complex that comparing them to epicoxal exites is as about as intelligent as comparing my arms to a boeing 747's wings. Evolutionists are fond of bringing two things vaguely similar together and then saying "see that proves they are linked" as though it is that simple. The only thing simple about it is the thinking used to come to the conclusion.
RE: Kimlitzer v Dover School Board
Thank you for raising this one Alex it reminded me of something. It appears that the main gripe the Judge had with the teaching of ID theory is that it is teaching religion as science. You and others like you point to this and say "See! that is why we should teach evolution, it is science not religion based". Quite the opposite is true, Alex your presupposition is hanging out! Evolutionary theory begins with religious (there cannot be a God who did this) and existential/philosophical (the world is originating in random interactions) thoughts and then builds its theories from there. As the judge said in the trial, even a young child can spot the religion in ID theory, the difference with evolutionary theory is that the children are lied to and your religion of blind faith is touted as science!
A link for you marty http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
He also wrote a book with the same title that you can source cheaply.
David, I have no respect for your understanding of evolution.
Well Alex your dislike of my thoughts asside you've again brought out assertions and baseless accusations by the look of it. On the topic of no respect though I would throw back the same to your view of history. You seem to credit the underqualifed Jesus myther crackpot fringe rather than solid history, so why should anyone credit your thoughts on these other points?
Marty you asked for resources, here is two from reputable sources. Yes there are others out there but I trust these two.
ReplyDeletehttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4884/113
This one is mostly web-based reading - largely giving the arguements for why the evolutionary theory doesn't work but also means you don't have to buy books ;)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/catalog/Technical-Academic,226.aspx
Good list of books on varying topics to do with design, as this is a far reaching concept it is difficult to have read all available or recommend one particular but have a look and see what strikes your fancy. Of course as is the case with all science the more recent books will be more up to date.
Marty: Re diversity and genetic issues
ReplyDeleteID theory states that animals did not gain genetic information to speciate but rather it happened through modification of expression or through loss of features. One example of this would be long haired and short haired dogs coming from a medium haired parent.
Re the different alleles we have in the human genome I would argue along similar lines. They have not arrisen (that is an evolutionary presupposition) but rather have always been present and the different traits have different expression. If there was more to your comment let me know.
It was not my intention for this to become such a big discussion - there is space for that elsewhere. ID theory does point to a moral absolute and thus a just heaven and hell but it is a side issue really.
ReplyDeletePlease accept my appologies Ryan.
My point was more that the human genome cannot include that level of genetic material, so in the ID scenario we could only have a max of 4 alleles for each gene.
ReplyDeleteDavid
ReplyDeleteRe insect evolution.
We begin with the hexapods like, Rhyniognatha hirsti, this Devonian species already had dicondylic mandibles which features in pterygota and not in apterygota. On the other hand, Odonata and Ephemeroptera appear to be the first pterygota which appear in the fossil record as distinct species come after the Devonian. Nonetheless, these species and many others appear to have evolved separately as can be seen in their wing morphology - wide differences are seen in pterygota including six-winged Palaeodictyoptera in the mid-Carboniferous to the late-Permian. However, wherever larval and adult fossils of primitive species are found there is visible fossil evidence of correlation between tracheal gills and wing structure (including positioning, shape and structure). Furthermore, unlike other terrestrial species such as scorpions, etc, the early pterygota were water based larval species. It is only in later fossils that we see neoptera species developing. Furthermore, there is a distinct fossil record of the transition between holomtabolus and hemitabolous neoptera. There is also a wealth of evolutionary information in pterygora - take lepidoptera (butterflies) - there is distinct fossil evidence of transition from Apoditrysia to Macrolepidoptera to Rhopalocera to Papilionoidea. These changes are, where we have living samples, shown in both observational and genetic studies.
The evidence of insect evolution is insummerountable because of the time that these species have been on earth. Basal species within the class insecta provide us with substantial evidence of evolution in comparison with modern species.
I suggest that you get down to your local library and read some of these materials (biology text books are big, full of facts and pictures which I am sure you will appreciate).
So tell me oh wise one, seeing I have no understanding, what where these air breathing parasites with legs specialised to holding feathers living on during the cambrian period? If you cant point out a valid one and back it with some science my point stands.
Thank you for finally recognising my status as wise.
I assume you are referring to Phthirapter Amblycera and Ischnocera when you say "bird louse" - especially since there have been so many species of insect on the planet since their initial evolution 350 million years ago (far more than possible to fit within the last 6000 years).
It is certainly true that bird lice are the oldest form of fossilised louse found. Nonetheless, the sub-species are not totally dependent on avian species. For instance, Phthirapter Ischnocera Trichophilopterus are found on mammals in Madagascar (lemurs) - a transition within the bird louse species to other species. If this transition can occur in one direction, then why say that it cannot happen in the other? Phthirapter Amblycera Laemobothriidae are also found on species other than birds.
Dr Martin Kennedy of the University of Glasgow has recently carried out studies indicating bird lice evolution is co-divergent rather than being a result of host swapping and accordingly, these species may have remained similar since the development of host species from say, dinosaurs. In this regard, I note the following from "Evolution of Insects" (Grimaldi and Engel[005] Cambridge University Press):-
When then did the Phthiraptera evolve? Lyal indicated there is little reason to assume lice are any older than birds and therian mammals. Birds are closely related to dromaeosaurs, from which they diverged perhaps in the mid-Jurrasic (Chiappe, 1995). Archaeoptryx, the earliest bird from the Late Jurassic of Solmhofen (ca 152 MYO), had feathers similar to modern flight feathers. At least some Cretaceous dromaeosaurs also had feathers (though none known for flight), so it is quite possible that they were too parasitized by lice.
So, Im not too worried about bird lice.
Alex your presupposition is hanging out! Evolutionary theory begins with religious (there cannot be a God who did this) and existential/philosophical (the world is originating in random interactions) thoughts and then builds its theories from there.
In your dreams.
Evolution is a theory based on the mountains of evidence of the origins of life, both fossil and genetic.
There is no pre-supposition behind evolution that there is no God. Rather, like all science, it simply leaves the matter silent and continues with its study. The only reason for your offence is that it works without your God. Remember Laplace and Napolean. Laplace builds his model of the solar system and presents it to the emperor. Napolean says that it is nice, but that he does not see God in the model - Laplace simply remarks that the model does not need it. Like Laplace's model - evolution makes no assumption or statement about God until someone that believes in God says "hey".
Simply put - it works without God and you are offended by that. Evolution has nothing to do with religion except to the extent that religious people cannot accept its findings. The offense that Evolution does to you is a reflection of yourself and not evolution.
So too, the offense that religion does to me is a reflection of myself. Different things are being reflected though.
I will try and complete my response when I get some time.
PS: Where is your evidence that Bird Lice have been around since the Cambrian - I have searched extensively and cannot find any evidence for this suggestion.
ReplyDeletePS: If you link creation on the web then you can expect my usual skepticism.
Yeah, sorry this has become a big ID/evolution thread, we could probably switch boards if you'd like Ryan.
ReplyDeleteAs to evolution presupposing no God, I'm very much with Alex. Evolution makes no comment on the supernatural. It also makes no comment (although it can be used very soon after the event) on the origins of life (abiogenesis). The reason you say this is because it is inconsistent with, and cannot be reconciled with, a biblical God.
The remainder of this discussion is going onto the "Neodarwinism is dying with a chicken bone in it's throat" article. My response to CASE is found there. Anyone making further posts here please address them to the central issue of this article.
ReplyDeleteAgain appologies Ryan for the distraction.
I posted an article regarding the historicity of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteWe can continue the discussion there if you wish. But I'll first respond to one of your other assertions:
"The insistence of justice being only the acquisition of punishment without reference to the person punished is false and corrupt."
No, you misunderstand me. You would have to agree that it is legal for a person who has a fine to pay, for their parents/friends to give/loan them some money so that they can pay the fine. So in the same way, we can receive the gift of Jesus' death if we repent and believe, so that we can pay the fine that we deserve.
No, you misunderstand me. You would have to agree that it is legal for a person who has a fine to pay, for their parents/friends to give/loan them some money so that they can pay the fine. So in the same way, we can receive the gift of Jesus' death if we repent and believe, so that we can pay the fine that we deserve.
ReplyDeleteRyan, as you well know, that analogy only works with respect to fines and not other forms of punishment. Is it just to have your brother imprisoned for your crime? No.
So why does the analogy work for fines and not other forms of penalty. The answer is that money is a fungible asset. In other words, it does not matter who owns the money, it serves the same purpose and has the same value (IE my $5 note is identical to yours). Thus, your analogy is still corrupted, for you are paying the fine - but, obtaining the means to do so from another and thus creating liability for a debt. Of course, since punishment - such as imprisonment in hell for eternity - is NOT fungible we cannot assert the analogy that you insist upon.
THUS - your argument about God being just is WRONG.
God (in the hypothetical universe where he exists) is not just by punishing people different based on someone else paying for the crime. Rather, he is corrupted. Of course, a lay person does not understand these thing - but you should know better.
The worst thing is, you continue to repeat apologists arguments that have been destroyed in the past centuries and won't accept they have been defeated. Just repeating an argument does not re-invigorate its weight during a debate. Despite all that you think, the jury is no longer out on the philosophical (and scientific) question of God. It has been resolved that he most likely does not exist and that there is certainly no direct evidence for him. Accept that or don't, its your decision. Just remember to guage yourself when you start trying to brainwash others into your evil cult.
"as you well know, that analogy only works with respect to fines and not other forms of punishment."
ReplyDeleteAlex, you seem to not actually read what was really said, but instead purport the same objections over and over again. The wages of sin is not x amount of years in Hell, it is a fine of death (please see above where I explain this further)! Therefore, the analogy works. So your objection is just WRONG.
"and that there is certainly no direct evidence for him."
How do you know this? Have you investigated the knowledge of every single human being from the beginning of the world to now to know that there is absolutely no evidence for Him? Obviously not. And since you have brought up no logical contradiction with evidence for God existing, therefore you cannot rationally assert that there is no evidence for God.
But it's definitely no surprise to me that you'd be making assertions like this with no backing.
Ryan, your blindness of what you are saying in order to support your argument is laughable:-
ReplyDeleteit is a fine of death
You are referring to the noun fine which is defined as:-
1. a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction: a parking fine.
That is, it is dependent on a sum of money. Money is fungible, such that one person's money is the same as anothers. You then go on to say that the penalty is death (a fine of death). But death is NOT FUNGIBLE, it does not carry the same operative nature of money, one person's death is not the same as another person's death because it is subject of the individual who dies whereas money has the same value, no matter who holds it. Your statement, accordingly, does not make logical sense - it is merely an illusion that you have constructed to avoid the proper and undeniable realisation that your proposed world view is, in fact, unjust.
I have read through your total explanation and you have not adequately addressed this issue. Death is the subject of the individual that dies, just as imprisonment is the subject of the individual that is imprisoned. It is not akin to a penalisation in the form of a fine and cannot be equated to same, notwithstanding the fact that even a fine in your proposed system would not adequately remedy the unjust nature of your proposed afterlife where same is paid by an ulterior party for you and not all other people.
The issues of justice and morality have been the subject of thousands of years of philosophy and argumentation - your proposal is infantile in comparison to the nature of our understanding of how these issues work and before you commence attempting to lecture us with your illogical statements, I strongly suggest that you learn something worth lecturing us on.
Another thought to add to the mix for you Alex. Your comments appear valid when it comes to fungible assets but you have fudged the situation to make it meet your comments.
ReplyDeleteFirstly when it comes to God who is by definition omnipotent, life and death are assets that can be transfered. When you have Jesus the Son who is the author of life and death, maker of heaven and hell, dying on the cross who can argue when He says that He has taken our death upon Himself? If Jesus is who He claimed to be, what you are saying is impossible is well within His reach.
Secondly when it comes to justice and what is legally permisible. The legislature defines what is permisible and just by and large. As such when God the lawgiver has said that there is to be punishment on earth (death or imprisonment) for those humans who commit murder or the like. So your comments are utterly true in a human judgement setting, the criminal must bear the punishment. But in our relating to Him, He has from the very begining accepted the death of a replacement, an atoning sacrifice.
God is the one who set up the law (both horizontal (human to human) and vertical (human to God)) to begin with and is more than powerful enough to make effective the death and punishment of Jesus for those who deserve eternal death, like me.
David, you have missed the point.
ReplyDelete1. Fungibility is not determined by whether the asset is transferrable but whether the asset is determined by relation to the person that holds it, such that, my death is unique to me because it is me that dies. That is a fairly simple concept and I do not see why you guys are having so many problems with it (other than the fact that it destroys your notion of God being just - but hey, the truth can be hard).
2. Logic dictates that the world view proposed by you is not possible. If God is breaking that logical notion in order to specially confirm your world view then God is effectively fudging logic in order to do so. Therefore, God is irrational. Alternatively, if you consider God to always be rational but that he can do one thing that contradicts logic then why can't he make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Ultimately, you will have to accept that your proposal of judgement after death and salvation through the blood sacrifice of Jesus is irrational and unjust. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the Bible that says that God is not irrational and unjust. In fact, most of the Old Testament where God is actively out and about would seem to confirm this proposed irrational and unjust nature. Then again, I perceive the Bible as a book written by men in order to control men and it does not surprise me one iota that it would incorporate rules that are irrational as men very rarely create rules that are rational. Then again, I would expect a true deity to be able to formulate rules that are without counter-argument and that is clearly not your God (do not fret, no-one else's God has fulfilled this criteria either).
And another thing, you seem to have strayed from a point that I often make to you. Justice is supposedly equal to the crime. The crime is determined by the accused's conduct and not the pain of the harmed. Therefore, how can you justify the torture and death FOR ETERNITY of a person that does not believe in your God. Are their crimes on this earth for 80 or so years truly so bad as to commit them. In reality, the response of God to those that do not believe is not punishment as justice - rather, it is an irrational punishment because he has hurt feelings. Ironic, isn't it. I do not feel such petty emotions because of my upbringing and education - we like to call it maturity - yet, your god totally loses it if people don't love him? Something about gives him the character of a man and not a deity (justified if the book was written by a man).
You're fudging on the fungible asset issue as I said:
ReplyDeletefungible Law Definition
adj
Of goods or products, that they are all of a kind, not unique, and replaceable by other goods of the same kind; for example, crops are fungible while a painting by Rembrandt is not.
–adjective Law.
(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.
God is able to supply those who have faith in Jesus with the life that is available in Jesus. Replacement of kind and well within God's right and power.
As for the judgement issue - just quickly as I am short on time today (again :)). The person you assault or injure also has bearing on the punishment. God is the ruler of the entire universe and as the maker of the universe He is of infinite worth. As such the punishment is infinite in nature and the attonement likewise was infinite. The infinitely worthy Son of God died for infinitely guilty men and women. God is just and the justifier of all those who trust in Jesus.
God Bless you and have a good Sunday.
God is able to supply those who have faith in Jesus with the life that is available in Jesus. Replacement of kind and well within God's right and power.
ReplyDeleteOMG - you completely missed the analogy :(. Clearly life is like a Rembrandt painting - it is individual and unique to the person that lives it - just as death is unique to the person that dies. Thus, it is not something that is fungible or replaceable between individuals - which would be required for God to act justly (as discussed earlier).
It would appear from your remarks that you simply accept that God can overcome the rules of logic and justice by a sweep of his hand, in which case, you are admitting that your God is not just or not rational which is a perfectly acceptable outcome to this argument from my point of view.
I would be glad to see you confirm those results in writing - and you should place a caveat on all Operation513 materials in future to that effect.
Clearly life is like a Rembrandt painting - it is individual and unique to the person that lives it - just as death is unique to the person that dies.
ReplyDeleteAh, here is the sticking point and the reason Ryan and I are talking past you and visa versa. You obviously assume as an atheist that there is no life beyond the natural and when the body stops functioning that is the end (an assertion you are yet to back with anything beyond opinion). Obviously this would make a non-sense of a death of one person being a replacement for another’s.
I’ll try to clarify why I believe Ryan and I both view death to be a fine and life/death to be fungible. The biblical perspective is that human life consists of body and soul/spirit together and death is the sepparation of those two parts (See the letter of James). Thus making life not unique and irreplaceable but a conection that doesn’t define the person (which is unique) and death is the severing of that conection and doesn’t end the existance of the person. So (if the illustration will be excused for its simplicity) life and death are "services" (as apposed to unique goods like the Mona Lisa) in the economy of God, which are a form of comodity and therefore fungible. It is reasonable to view death as a fine because it is the penalty incurred by an individual.
You are making your comments from the perspective that the body is human life intoto and that is patently opposite to what we are begining from.
OMG - (Oh My God)
That is an exclamation that God is your God Alex. To return your comment on caveats, are you now going to start posting all your blog comments with this caveat? :)
David
ReplyDeleteYou are talking out of your hat.
The "irreplaceable" that we are considering is not in relation to giving to returning something, but rather, whether the thing said to be fungible is subject to a specific person or thing. Since your life is specifically your life (and death accordingly), it does not fall within the meaning of fungible.
OMG - as per usual you have become excited about the use of a casual turn of phrase. Perhaps, I was talking about Zeus or Odin or Horus? Better still, surely you think that I believe myself to be God - in which case your comments, like all your comments, are strangely inconsistent over time.
Neither Ryan nor yourself have answered any of the problems that I have raised with your "logical proof of heaven and hell" and I am rather convinced that you will not be able to surmount them.
The atheist world view is much more likely, we are born, experience consciousness as an emergent phenomenon and when the background order required to carry out that consciousness becomes depleted, that consciousness ceases. No judgement, no justice -> The reason behind seeking justice in this life rather than waiting for the next. For let us face the reality, the purpose behind giving you this faith in the afterlife is so that you will not fight the unjust in this life - it dumbs you down and makes you submissive to the powers that are - you have fallen in to the trap - I am trying to raise you from it, still it seems like a foolish endeavour but, if we perfect the technique then we can save the human race and let justice be done.
A few things that I want to clear up with you:
ReplyDelete1. God is not just a judge in the same way a man is a judge, He is also the law maker and soveriegn from who's character comes the law.
2. God is the wronged party in our sin not primarily man. As such if he desires to settle this problem "out of court" what is the problem with that?
3. The sins that you commit are secondary issues, the primary issue is the rebellion against your rightful soveriegn. Treason is your charge not petty crime.
4. If this was to be judged on rights and wrongs all would fall under the judgement, but as I said before, "legislation" contains an amnesty for those who come seeking grace in Christ. This was not a later addition but rather present from before the creation of the world as written in scripture.
5. The maker of life and death and the one wronged here says that He is willing to accept the death of Christ for the death of those who trust in Him. He made it and says it is "fungible" - what gives you the right to argue the point? Are you suddenly wiser than you appear and have infinite knowledge?
No Alex you are a man and like all men are subject to the limitations of your finite mind. You balk at the justice of attonement merely because you fail to see the salient points through deliberate blindness and a desire to accuse God of injustice.
No judgement, no justice -> The reason behind seeking justice in this life rather than waiting for the next.
Quite the opposite is true Alex, if there is no universal justice and someone powerful enough and good enough to administer it then all of human justice becomes a farce because even the best judge is imperfect in judgement and retrebution/aquital. What you describe and ascribe to produces injustice only, a world were man is the measure of all truth and nothing to stop the powerful and corrupt oppressing the weak. The threat of eternal consequence is not the whole picture but is one thing that restrains the hand of wicked men.
For let us face the reality, the purpose behind giving you this faith in the afterlife is so that you will not fight the unjust in this life - it dumbs you down and makes you submissive to the powers that are
LOL!!!! As I have said before, this sort of comment reveals either ignorance, or in your case deception. The social justice and equality and drive for education present in the Christian world view and Christian history make a mockery of your comments.
Empty nice sounding rhetoric is still empty Alex. You are misrepresenting the truth, Christianity is just, rational and socially active. You could not be more wrong.
LOL!!!! As I have said before, this sort of comment reveals either ignorance, or in your case deception. The social justice and equality and drive for education present in the Christian world view and Christian history make a mockery of your comments.
ReplyDeleteCrap, Western society had 1500 years of christianity before it uncovered universal sufferage, democracy, trade unionism, state welfare, etc, etc. Those things were brought about by people who challenged the social order and theological dictates of christianity. It is no suprise that it was the error of Darwin, Plank, Maxwell and Einstein that the majority of the population changed from slaves to equals.
Perhaps you can point out why christianity took so long to approach these social advantages.
In truth, Christianity is an evil master. You have not opened your eyes to it yet.
What you describe and ascribe to produces injustice only, a world were man is the measure of all truth and nothing to stop the powerful and corrupt oppressing the weak.
Spend a week in a jail and you will realise that is exactly how the world is.
The fact is that you have led a sheltered life if you do not see that this is the reality of the world.
BUT, we do not need to give up and despair. We have each other. I am proposing that we actually work together to create a just world instead of buying the idea that it "will be ok" in the next life as you do. Duh, if a person wanted to act unjustly they just need to distract the population for long enough - that is what religion does.
It is no suprise that it was the error of Darwin, Plank, Maxwell and Einstein that the majority of the population changed from slaves to equals.
ReplyDeleteI aggree with the error part! That aside we have argued this before. I think if you look at the history, most of those priviledges you love came into existance in the 100 or so years prior to these men (baring Einstein who is a later addition). It was during the great awakening, the british revival and following period of prosperity and love of Christ that these great things were hammered out in britain and the US.
Oh and by the way if you really want to have a look at the difference Christianity makes, then look at the pagan and atheistic world prior to it's coming and compare. Slaves? Most in that world were counted as chattles and nothing more. The rich and powerful ruled and the poor scrapped it out for what was left. Though not perfect, the Christian influence on the western world has been emensely positive. Which fits with the Justice of God that inspires such desire in this life also. Do you have a rationally coherent reason for your desire for justice, given the beings you desire it for are mere chance in your view.
Spend a week in a jail and you will realise that is exactly how the world is.
The fact is that you have led a sheltered life if you do not see that this is the reality of the world.
Hmm, comments on my history from a complete stranger who has never met me and know very little of my life... Or are you just trying to set up another Christian straw man to knock down Alex?
As for it being the reality of the world, does that say something to you Alex? Australia is largely a secular nation now, Christian faith is the minority. And you say that injustice and oppression is the way the world is now. That is a very revealing comment.
“No, God originally created the world perfect - with no death, suffering, disease, etc. But God set laws, and said that if a person breaks those laws, they will be sent to an eternal Hell. People broke those laws, so the just thing to do is for God to carry out justice and give them the punishment they deserve, Hell. But He is also so loving that He died on the cross for those who would repent and trust in Christ.”
ReplyDeleteSo if God created the world perfect was it a surprise to him that Adam and Eve rebelled. If it was a surprise then He is not omnipotent, as He did not know this would happen. But if is not a surprise then He did if fact knowingly create a world with evil. Also do you really believe that people are so powerful that they can break the laws of God on their own? I think not, it was by God’s design that Adam and Eve sinned. How can He be all powerful if it is not? And as far as I have read in the Bible there is no verse that says that “wages of sin is hell”. It does say “For the wages of sin is death”. And God did not mention anything about eternal punishment when He told Adam to stay away from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. He did say however, “You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” And when He cursed them He did not mention eternal punishment and torture in a place after death, He merely said, “Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are and to dust you shall return.”
Now if you want to mention the fact that punishment in Hell is most a New Testament that I would agree with. Even so I would recommend that you research the etymology of the word hell, as the Bible is a translation from both Hebrew and Greek. Though I will give you a head start and tell that the word Hell originally meant "concealed place," "to cover, conceal, save" in Old English. Though it was the name of the Norse mythological goddess who rules over the dead in Niflheim, and from there had the definitions of being a "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," or "the underworld,". Another interesting thing you should note is that "the English word may be in part from the Old Norse Hel and therefore a transfer of a pagan concept and word to a Christian idiom, used in the K.J.V. for O.T. Heb. Sheol, N.T. Gk. Hades, Gehenna." Now these words, Sheol and Hades both mean place for the dead, something I encourage you to look up yourself for it is not difficult to find that these are indeed their definitions. Therefore it seems strange that these words are translated as Hell in the Bible, especially when the definitions are complete different. I ask you how eternal punishment became a Biblical principle. It seems to me that the very thing God warned His people about in the Old Testament, has occurred in the New. For just as the Israelites did, by taking the religions of the pagans around them and stating them as truth, Christian today are also taking pagan ideals that they blindly follow, not realising that the truth has been compromised.
Ryan I believe you are passionate about you faith and I respect that. And I admit that I don’t have the answers to everything, but I have enough questions to not blindly accept the truth of a literal hell. For I ask you how is it just, that by ONE man’s actions ALL of mankind is eternally damned, and yet by ONE man’s actions only a FEW are saved. I am sure that you will respond with an answer, and I look forward to reading it.
"if God created the world perfect was it a surprise to him that Adam and Eve rebelled."
ReplyDeleteNo, it was not a surprise.
"But if is not a surprise then He did if fact knowingly create a world with evil."
That does not logically follow. God created humans with the capability to do evil, for Adam & Eve could choose to follow God or rebel against Him. But God did not actively force Adam & Eve to rebel.
"Also do you really believe that people are so powerful that they can break the laws of God on their own?"
In our natural fallen state? Yes, absolutely. In fact, no unregenerate person can do anything good in the sight of God, they can simply choose which sin to commit. But they cannot choose Christ, unless God sovereignly draws them to faith.
"And as far as I have read in the Bible there is no verse that says that “wages of sin is hell”. It does say “For the wages of sin is death”."
Because the wages of sin is death, the unregenerate will go to a place of eternal torment, called Hell. I explained why a couple posts up in these comments. Here it is again: "Not in the case when the punishment is a fine to be paid. The law is not concerned about how one gets the money to pay the fine (as long as another law is not broken), but only that the fine is paid. So if you have a speeding fine, you can ask your parents for money in order to pay the fine for your speeding.
In the same way, the Bible describes the punishment for our sin is a fine...and that fine is death ('wages of sin is death'). It's not x amount of time in Hell, or x amount of punishment in Hell, it's death. A person will be in Hell forever though, because in there they will be constantly dying, but never fully die so thus they will never fully pay their fine for their sins. But Jesus can pay it for us on the cross (because He's sinless), if we repent and trust that He died to pay for our sins."
But moreover, Jesus clearly talks about a literal place of eternal punishment for those who have not repented and trusted Christ as their Saviour.
Matthew 13:41-42 - "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 8:11-12 - "I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Mark 9:47b-48 - "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’" (speaks of the eternality of Hell)
...and so on.
The Bible is abundantly clear that a person will either go to Heaven or Hell when they die.
Ryan said:
ReplyDelete“God created Adam and Eve with the capability to do evil.”
“It was not a surprise that Adam and Eve sinned.”
God created them to be able to sin, then they sinned and God wasn’t surprised.
Ryan: Did God know they would sin?
"Did God know they would sin?"
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. For God is omniscient.
You are saying that God knew they would sin, therefore knew they would go to hell?
ReplyDeleteYou believe in a God that knew his creation would eventually be in hell for eternity, yet did it anyway?
You don't find that jarring in any way?
"You believe in a God that knew his creation would eventually be in hell for eternity, yet did it anyway?"
ReplyDeleteYes, but that does not make God unjust in any way. For He created the universe for His own glory (since He is worthy of it), by demonstrating His justice upon those who will be sent to Hell because of their sin, and by demonstrating His love and mercy by sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for those who would believe (when they really deserve Hell). But Jesus' death satisfies God's justice and thus those people can go to Heaven when they die.
Just so it's easier to discuss, I will only look at one aspect of your comment for now.
ReplyDeleteRyan you said
"Because the wages of sin is death, the unregenerate will go to a place of eternal torment, called Hell."
Here you offer no reasoning that death is going to a place of eternal torment; it seems to me that you have merely equated death to mean hell. Whereas I believe that death has to be the opposite of life, which means that one does not exist. But according to your definition one does not die (not exist), but in fact lives, whether in eternal hell or eternal heaven. But I don’t get this, how it is that God gives life, which is the combination of the body and spirit, according to Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living being.” And He prevents man from obtaining eternal life, where after the fall: “Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.” Yet even though the Bible says we are mortal, meaning that we will eventually cease to live, a separation of body and spirit, you Ryan seem to be saying that we are in fact immortal. The question I have about this is that if we don’t actually die, how can we be resurrected? You at least need to acknowledge that at the day of judgement all people will be resurrected and then they will be separated. And if you do acknowledge this then it seems to me that your belief that death represents hell cannot stand, for shouldn’t it say that “the wages of sin is death [and then eventually hell]”.
Next you say that “I explained why a couple posts up in these comments. Here it is again: "Not in the case when the punishment is a fine to be paid. The law is not concerned about how one gets the money to pay the fine (as long as another law is not broken), but only that the fine is paid. So if you have a speeding fine, you can ask your parents for money in order to pay the fine for your speeding.
In the same way, the Bible describes the punishment for our sin is a fine...and that fine is death ('wages of sin is death'). It's not x amount of time in Hell, or x amount of punishment in Hell, it's death. A person will be in Hell forever though, because in there they will be constantly dying, but never fully die so thus they will never fully pay their fine for their sins."
This idea that one is continually dying, doesn’t make sense. How can you continually cease to exist? I understand that it is possible to be continually punished or tortured, but you cannot continually die. And it seems you have changed your definition of death. What is dying in this sense, as one is already in Hell, are you now trying to say that it means torture? Or do you mean it is ceasing to exist? Either way there is discrepancies in your use of this word.
Also you talk about the fact that Jesus’ death and resurrection pays the fine for our sins. But if the wages of sin is death, which means eternity in hell, as you surmise, then why didn’t Jesus pay that price. Why did he only die for three days? That is not fulfilling the punishment. He needed to spend eternity in hell, in order to satisfy the judgement of God according to your definition.
I look forward to your response, and sincerely hope that God would open our eyes to His truth.
Ryan said: "Yes, but that does not make God unjust in any way."
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about "unjust"? I'm just eliciting the features of the god you're preaching about.
Do you know what cruelty is?
"Here you offer no reasoning that death is going to a place of eternal torment; it seems to me that you have merely equated death to mean hell."
ReplyDeleteNo, we see in Revelation 21:8 (and other places), it says that Hell is the second death and describes it as: "the lake that burns with fire and sulfur".
"you Ryan seem to be saying that we are in fact immortal."
Yes, in the sense that we will never cease to exist. Of course our physical body here will die, but at the judgment to come, everyone will be given bodies that are imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42). Then they will either be sent a place of eternal torment (Rev. 20:10; Luke 3:17), or spend eternity in Heaven (John 5:24). That is the clear teaching of the Bible.
//"the wages of sin is death"//
Since we have sinned, our first death (of our physical bodies here on this Earth) cannot pay for the fine of our sins. That is why the Bible describes the second death (which is Hell) as where the unregenerate will go to pay for the fine of their sins for eternity. But since Jesus was sinless, His first death could sufficiently pay for the sins of those who would repent and believe.
//"How can you continually cease to exist"//
I meant that you'll be continually be in the process of dying (in torment, etc), but never actually die. So thus, the fine for your sins will never be paid for.
Butterfly:
ReplyDelete"Whereas I believe that death has to be the opposite of life, which means that one does not exist"
Just a quick one for you and the others butterfly - what evidence have you got that the end of life is the end of existence? Given the atheistic perspective is based on scientific observation this is important to say the least.
Oh, and an arguement from silence is not an arguement.
You have all missed the point entirely. Being a believer is a matter of faith. We have no need to prove anything. That is what faith is by definition. We are supposed to carry the message and offer it freely to those who would have it. It is free for the taking. God has not asked that we convert people. He asked that we be messengers, that we witness to others. Jesus himself never forced anyone to believe. Those who followed Him, did so of their own choice. And such it is today. I can tell you that I believe, that I have experienced the Holy Spirit personally, that I know God is real. I can share my personal experiences with you, but in the end, you have to decide if you want it or not. I have nothing to prove one way or the other. I haveo nly expeience, strength, and hope.
ReplyDeleteKatie: conclusive absolute proof no, evidence yes, a proof of God is a way of pointing to Him.
ReplyDeleteAs for faith and the need for no proofs (I am unsure exactly what you mean by that).... Paul addressed this very well.
...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:15-16)
We try to walk the difficult line of giving a reasoned defense of our faith and at the same time gently loving those we speak to. Please pray for us.
Ryan you have made some awesome points, but there are a few things that I would like to question you about.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you make reference to Revelation 21:8, which I will quote:
“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
While I understand the reasons why you hold your opinion, the fact is that there is no mention of the word hell here. Therefore your statement that it “says” that hell is the second death is not true. It is merely an “interpretation” that the fire mentioned in this verse equates to a place of eternal torture where one “is continually dying, but never dies.” Therefore this is not proof, but instead your opinion based on facts that have been presented to you throughout your life that you believe to be true.
I have to say that your response has again cause me to question what exactly is your concept of death. For it mentions second death in the verse above, and the basic meaning of death is “the end”. A definition that is followed throughout the Bible, with verses such as, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death (end them/make sure they don’t exist anymore) the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13) or “Put to death (end them/make sure they don’t exist anymore) therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Col. 3:5). Therefore how can second death, which must follow the first death which is the end of our physical life, not be the end of anything, but in fact instead be a never-ending, never-fulfilled punishment or reward?
I understand that you attempted to explain to me your position on death.
Butterfly: "you Ryan seem to be saying that we are in fact immortal."
Ryan: “Yes, in the sense that we will never cease to exist.”
But wow! That is a bold statement Ryan. I mean do you realise that to say humans are immortal is contradictory to the Bible? If you read the following verses you will see how your statement disagrees with what the Bible says:
* 1 Cor. 15:53-54a “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality,”
* 1 Tim. 6:16 “who [Christ] alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, who no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.”
* 2 Tim. 1:10 “but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,”
I say this just to warn you to be careful in what you say Ryan, Satan wants us to believe that we are more that what we really are. However, if you truly believe that you are in a sense immortal and your justification is from the Word of God and the Spirit of God, I will not question you again on it. For your information though I personally believe that just as we did not exist before we were born, so we will not exist for a time when we die. God cannot resurrect something that is already alive.
Now you have an excellent response to my comment on the “wages of sin is death”. It is a clear and honest response that would make sense if I believed hell was a literal place, that second death was hell and that Jesus’ death only saved a very small portion of the billions of people who have lived throughout history. But you see Ryan I don’t believe that. I mean you should know this verse Ryan “For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have aeonian life.” (John 3:16) [if you were wanting to say that God doesn’t love the whole world, but only those whom He chose to save then you really need to learn Greek, because the word κόσ.μον, is translated world for a reason, but I’ll let you research it and find out for yourself]. I can understand your justification that we must first believe in him then he will save us. But it says the Bible clearly says “that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:9-11) [I have chosen this translation because it is the most accurate, please do not say that in your version it says “should” and assume you have won the argument. Find a Greek translation and see for yourself that it does not mention should or will, but is actually literally translated “that at His name Jesus every knee bow heaven and earth and under the earth”]. I also understand that you will tell me that while every one will bow their knee and confess Jesus is Lord, those people who did not make a decision for Christ before they died do not truly mean what they are saying. And that because it is under compulsion that it’ll be too late for them as one must make this decision before they died. But this seems strange to me, especially looking at Jesus’ ministry himself. One would think that had He realised just how urgent it was for people to understand and believe in Him, He would have taken greater care in explaining His parables to not just His disciples but also to the crowds of people. In fact why speak in parables at all when the chance to save them from eternal torture is at stake. Jesus’ reason though for speaking in parables is “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matt. 13:13). From this it’s clear that Christ did not want them to understand for a reason. However it seems coldly cruel to let people who were searching, whom He loved as it says in Matt. 9:36 “But when He saw the multitudes he was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no Shepard.” To let them not understand and die in their sin and therefore according to your beliefs Ryan go into eternal hell, which is 100 times worse than anything in our world. The Jesus that you worship does not understand the meaning of love, because that is not being loving. And the Bible says in 1 Cor. 13:8a that “Love NEVER fails.” Yet if what you believe is true Ryan, love has indeed failed. It seems to me that the God you worship Ryan is hypocritical, He tells you to love your enemies, yet He Himself does not love and save ALL of His enemies.
Please understand Ryan that I am not arguing with you, because I don’t believe that there is a winner in this. Instead I believe we are merely God’s workmanship, trying to understand God, ourselves and the world in which we live. Therefore may we strengthen each other’s faith and Praise God in and for all things. AMEN.
David thanks for the question. It was astute and to the point which I like. You are right I have no scientific proof that I’m right. I mean I did do some research on Near Death Experiences, but I found that most people had very different visions. They ranged from going to Heaven and Hell, to not experience anything at all, to seeing dead relatives and talking to them, to going to a temple. From all of these contradicting experiences I have to conclude that I can’t prove it scientifically.
ReplyDeleteHowever Praise be to God, I’m not an atheistic and I don’t have to prove things scientifically to believe in them. I am in fact a Universialist Christian, who believes the Bible is the Divine Word of God. And therefore I believe the Word of God when it says that “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.” (Eccles. 9:10).
What evidence do you have David that death means whatever it is that you believe it means?
Blessings to you and I look forward to your response!
Butterfly, much like you in many ways I look to the bible when it comes to things outside the scope of natural knowledge. I hold that the bible is the final authority on all matters it touches. As such I look to the bible for my concept of both Justice and Death. While the bible is not explicit in the defining of the meaning of death as the punishment for sin it is clear as to what the consequences of sin are.
ReplyDeleteThose that sin will face the wrath and anger of God expressed in it's final form as punishment consciously forever in the lake of fire reserved for the devil and all who follow him. I believe this because God is one and so we cannot just pass over passages such as:
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
(Rev 14:11)
Torment is a conscious process and as the word used for forever is the same as the one for the eternality of God I therefore affirm the historical church's affirmation of an eternal hell.
Likewise we see numerous times in scripture the fact that sinners redeemed through faith in Jesus Christ will not face this punishment. From this we can deduct that there is eternal life for some on one hand and eternal death for some on the other.
Just an asside, if you are a universalist do you mean all will be saved? In that case what will you do with Jesus' word to the pharasees?
So he said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come."
(Joh 8:21)
Was He wrong, or lying? If niether (which I hold to) then there must be some that will die in their sin and not enter heaven and as such universalism and extinctionism fails. See also: Mat 7:21, Mat 7:13, Rev 20:5, Mat 25:46, Lk 16:23-26, Rev 21:8.
Uhmmmm huge flaw in your reasoning Mr. Ryan....
ReplyDeleteI don't know if any comment raised this issue or not, as Im not interested right now in reading all the comments, but here goes...
You say God is loving, caring, almighty, supreme, blah blah blah....
Next you say that God says that if you don't follow Him, or don't trust in Him, he will punish you/condemn you.
Tell me this Mr. Ryan...if God punishes us for not beleiving in him and not following him, then isn't he being arrogant and overly cruel??
And if he won't do that, then why all the necessity to embrace christianity is a fluke and we can relax.
Frankly speaking, I am an agonist, and think you are a jerk Ryan....I love everyone, but when someone preaches their religion by saying that their religion is better than others I really feel pissed at that person....
ReplyDeleteIt really disgusts me when I encounter extremists like you...
Ok guys I am really sorry, for my last two comments if anyone thought that they were anti-God or anti-Christ. But I am really angry/annoyed with Ryan. Hes being one weird guy.
ReplyDeleteHe should really thank Butterfly...cause otherwise he would have created an anti-Christian or something of the sort...By he I mean Ryan.
So, just to get this straight, do evolution apply at all acording to creationists or started when the earth was "created by God"? I mean there are plenty of ways to verify that it's going on right now, i.e. dogs that people have linebreeded because they posses special traits that we want to enhance, like greyhounds for their speed and bloodhounds for their nose. Not to forget the Belgian Blue either. I'd say thats human-forced-evolution.
ReplyDeleteAnd look at some of the work Gregor Mendel did, I mean if God really intended animals and plants to be as he created them until judgement day, howcome we can change them? Let's say that he created them but allowing us to change them, wouldn't that be like leading us away from the "truth" then? Making us believe in evolution instead of Him. I'd call that a stupid move, but He should have seen that coming, "God is all knowing". And don't say that it's part of His divine plan when you cant explain why He would do that.
Furthermore, didn't Johannes Paulus II confirm the evolution as fact, or at least major parts from it in a Dogma?
Andreas: A couple of quick points on evolution as this is not a post on that topic (please post on the right ones if you want to discuss that)
ReplyDeleteRe Breeds: They are not evidence of evolution but rather variation within a kind. They fit perfectly well in the creationist perspective. Which is that God created kinds not species that do not change. When animals were made they were given a limited amount of adaptive ability, which the evolutionist misinterprets as being unlimited (thus adaptation becomes evolution).
As for Mendel, he found what any inquiring mind will - that there is ability to change within the limits of a kind. There is no evidence for evolution which is proof positive and due to the massive flaws in the theory it should have been disregarded long ago but isn't due to the religious nature of it.
People cling to evolution because it gives "reason" to their materialistic faith. Evolution likewise is based on philosophical/religious beliefs (no God, materialistic/naturalistic universe). Evolution is a faith, google "Evolution as dogma" and have a read of the article by P. Jonson.