the right religion

[Agnostic75]

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

These are not reasons they are complaints.

On the contrary, what I said is true.

I have already suggested you read Craig's: "the problem of the unevangelised" many times. If you do not desire answers because they upset the narrative then debate is meaningless.

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Are you claiming that no skeptic in the entire world who has been evangelized would become a Christian under any other circumstances?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that easily explains why people only learn about the Bible from other people, in other words, through human effort, and only obtain enough food to eat through human effort. James tells Christians to give food to hungry people, but no loving God would tell his followers to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to starving people. Essentially, God says that he wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort, except of course, when he gave manna to the Hebrews. In addition, God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another human tells them about it. Quite obviously, no loving God would act like that.

Please reply to my post #4377.

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, what I said is true.

That is like saying that the conservative position on abortion is a hatred of Women's rights and not a love for human lives.

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant. Chemotherapy has known disastrous effects and only a chance of working. I don't think you can blame medicine if someone refuses to have it.

Are you claiming that no skeptic in the entire world who has been evangelized would become a Christian under any other circumstances?

I am saying circumstances are not to blame.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that easily explains why people only learn about the Bible from other people, in other words, through human effort, and only obtain enough food to eat through human effort. James tells Christians to give food to hungry people, but no loving God would tell his followers to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to starving people. Essentially, God says that he wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort, except of course, when he gave manna to the Hebrews. In addition, God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another human tells them about it. Quite obviously, no loving God would act like that.

There are people all over the pace that have faith but no bible. Christians are the most generous demographic on earth. You are going to get no where complaining about tribes who have Christians dig wells only to come back the following year and find them full of waste. God said if you do not work you do not eat. He never said it was his intention to provide pizza for everyone. Why stop there. What about a car, medicine, Nintendo? What is our sin allowed to cause? Is any deficiency proof God is not existent? This is a false optimization fallacy. God said our rebellion will costs us dearly but if we turn to him it will be made right in the end and has asked his followers to reflect that and that is exactly what we see and would expect.

 

[Nakosis]

You seem confused-- every real Christian knows for sure--144,000( little flock) are bought from the earth--no more--no less. rev 14:3) You have been fed the crap by the great apostasy it seems--like most are.
Jesus taught this truth---- Blessed are the meek, ( great crowd)for they will inherit the earth)---not heaven--earth---Jesus teachers teach this truth.

Ok I apologize for getting the ideology wrong, however you took the last line of my post which was mostly sarcasm, not aimed at you but my own ideas of perfection, and ignored the rest.

So while thanks for the clarification it doesn't have much to do with the bulk on my post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Nakosis]

In many cases, your God is allowing luck, chance, and circumstance to determine who he will save.

Please reply to my post #4377.

Some Christians believe that God personally calls them to becoming Christians. So for any individual, regardless of circumstance they could be "called to God".

In the same since I suppose there could be Christians of circumstance that were never called by God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Some Christians believe that God personally calls them to becoming Christians. So for any individual, regardless of circumstance they could be "called to God".

In the same since I suppose there could be Christians of circumstance that were never called by God.

Oh sure, Calvinists believe that God chooses who he will save, that has not come up in my discussions with 1robin.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

There is no 'right' religion that will suit everybody.

How to tell if a religion is 'right' for you, is when you start agreeing with the philosophy and doctrine on more than just a mental level...you start actually feeling it and experiencing that religion within your life, leaving little to no room for doubt that this is the 'right religion' for you.

It has probably been said before, but I am not about to read 439 pages full of answers. lol

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant.

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John Yung lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly. He lived for 65 years, and died. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire live. John easily qualifies as being properly evangelized. As such, most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, what if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was young, and lived there for the rest of his life, and became a Christian? Under that scenario, most Christians would say that John will have eternal life. My position is that no loving God would send John to hell if he would have become a Christian under any circumstances that he would have encountered under all possible conditions.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

John's life would have been exactly the same as Tom's life if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, and John would have become a Christian.

I am saying circumstances are not to blame.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians, and were used by C.S. Lewis, an example being his "lord, liar, or lunatic argument." If Jesus is the Son of God, obviously, it is impossible for him to be a liar, or a lunatic, but Lewis used those impossible hypothetical arguments.

As far as men rejecting religion is concerned, their male gender if often to blame since research shows that women are far more likely to become theists, Christians, and creationists, than men are.

In many cases, your God is allowing luck, chance, and circumstance to determine who he will save.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that easily explains why people only learn about the Bible from other people, in other words, through human effort, and only obtain enough food to eat through human effort. James tells Christians to give food to hungry people, but no loving God would tell his followers to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to starving people. Essentially, God says that he wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort, except of course, when he gave manna to the Hebrews. In addition, God wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another human tells them about it. Quite obviously, no loving God would act like that.

There are people all over the pace that have faith but no Bible.

What I meant was is that as far as we know, no man has ever learned about the Gospel message directly from God, but always by hearing about it from other people, reading books, watching television etc. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that is what would be expected. If the God of the Bible exists, there are not any possible good reasons why he should not make sure that everyone in the world hears the Gospel message.

Christians are the most generous demographic on earth.

I was discussing God, not Christians. Even if I was discussing Christians, what you said about them does not reasonably prove that the God of the Bible exists. If you claim that it does, I will start a new thread about that topic.

You are going to get no where complaining about tribes who have Christians dig wells only to come back the following year and find them full of waste.

I have not been discussing anything in this thread that is pertinent to that.

God said if you do not work you do not eat.

What an utterly absurd argument. Hundreds of Christians living in Ireland centuries ago worked very hard during the Irish Potato Famine, but died of starvation.

He never said it was his intention to provide pizza for everyone.

James tells Christians to give food to hungry people. No loving God would inspire a Bible writer to say that, and refuse to give good to starving people. Essentially, God is saying that he wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort.

Is any deficiency proof God is not existent?

It is not proof that no God exists, but it is proof that the God of the Bible does not exist. That is because logically, a loving God would easily be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without seriously injuring, and killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and without refusing to give food to starving people. That argument is irrefutable, and is morally intuitive to all loving, moral people.

What you said about people rebelling against God is an absurd argument since none of the book of Genesis is historical, including the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional?

Please reply to my post #4377.

 

[1robin]

Oh sure, Calvinists believe that God chooses who he will save, that has not come up in my discussions with 1robin.

I reject emphatically this Calvinist doctrine. I believe God calls us all but few respond and so few are led along the path of faith until the goal is reached. I believe most may follow until the first whiff of God, ultimate moral accountability, or the frightening aspect of being judged is detected. I was provoked by my conscience to seek God many times but jumped ship many times until I finally gave in. That aspect of Calvinism is a misunderstanding based on a tiny fragment of the bible and is one of the most rejected in history.

 

[1robin]

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John Yung lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly. He lived for 65 years, and died. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire live. John easily qualifies as being properly evangelized. As such, most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, what if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was young, and lived there for the rest of his life, and became a Christian? Under that scenario, most Christians would say that John will have eternal life. My position is that no loving God would send John to hell if he would have become a Christian under any circumstances that he would have encountered under all possible conditions.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

John's life would have been exactly the same as Tom's life if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, and John would have become a Christian.

Since I must have answered this same claim a half dozen times and ways I give up. However tell me which verse you example disproves. Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history? He offers enough evidence not an equal amount.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians, and were used by C.S. Lewis, an example being his "lord, liar, or lunatic argument." If Jesus is the Son of God, obviously, it is impossible for him to be a liar, or a lunatic, but Lewis used those impossible hypothetical arguments.

Hypothetical arguments can be valid. Claiming John would have believed in one place but not another is not among them.

As far as men rejecting religion is concerned, their male gender if often to blame since research shows that women are far more likely to become theists, Christians, and creationists, than men are.

If you know anything about stats you would realize this is abhorrent. You need enough data to eradicate or almost eradicate irrelevant influences like the modern secular trends that produce broken homes, patriarchal or matriarchal influences, traditions, etc.... IOW you need a whole lot more data. At times the church was dominated by men and was constantly cited as being against women's rights. It has surged, switched, swapped, been both extremes, and at one time been almost 100% creationists. You also need a standard by which to declare a deviation meaningful, since no belief can reasonable be expected to contain equal ratios of any type.

In many cases, your God is allowing luck, chance, and circumstance to determine who he will save.

No, in many cases your interpreting data that indicates social choices, trends, traditions, and preferences as luck.
Just to give one example France and to some extent Britain have twice just in the last century lost almost an entire generation of men. Can you imagine the effect on statistics this would have or cultures where men dominate the workforce or where sexuality has a bias like in China or back when children were a labor force? You have not even begun what you must do to make this point.

What I meant was is that as far as we know, no man has ever learned about the Gospel message directly from God, but always by hearing about it from other people, reading books, watching television etc. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that is what would be expected. If the God of the Bible exists, there are not any possible good reasons why he should not make sure that everyone in the world hears the Gospel message.

As far as you know? What percentage of testimonies have you read? I have read or read of hundreds where no bible was involved at all. Since the bible was God's choice for revelation then even if you were right it would be just as consistent with God. I will tell you of a story that speaks to several of your claims here but it is just one example of thousands. I think in some African nation where armed bands simply captured people to be ransomed or children to be recruited there was a young man who was told to clean out the latrines (I just remembered it was N Korea). He heard about God somewhere and in his conditions was desperate for information but expected none. He noticed that in the toilet everyday he kept finding pages of a book used as waste paper. He finally cleaned a page off and another prisoner told him it was the Bible (an OT book I believe). Over years he had collected an almost entire bible and became a Christian. You can ever see a picture of it if searched for. Another example was of a missionary who was chased of a south American island where shamanism held sway. He was in a hotel room waiting to fly home when at night a shaman knocked on his door. he said Jesus had appeared to him and said he was leading his people to hell. The before and after pictures of him are night and day. As I type I am reminded of many stories like this but am not going to find them all for you. You should be able to do so without too much trouble.

I was discussing God, not Christians. Even if I was discussing Christians, what you said about them does not reasonably prove that the God of the Bible exists. If you claim that it does, I will start a new thread about that topic.

That is what you would expect to find if God existed. False God's do not usually make fundamental changes in character on that scale for the good.

I have not been discussing anything in this thread that is pertinent to that.

Then ignore it.

What an utterly absurd argument. Hundreds of Christians living in Ireland centuries ago worked very hard during the Irish Potato Famine, but died of starvation.

This is off subject but I will give you some irony. BTW Moses died, Jesus died, as far as I know all Christians die. It is even stated they will emphatically. In the civil war entire regiments were composed of immigrants. Two Irish regiments met each other on a field in Fredericksburg. They were from the region of the potato famine and died in the fields where Christians had sent them potatoes from the US as a relief. One Irishmen said they had escaped a land of tyranny only to kill each other in the land of the free. Quite ironic.

James tells Christians to give food to hungry people. No loving God would inspire a Bible writer to say that, and refuse to give good to starving people. Essentially, God is saying that he wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort.

He is the only reason anyone has any food at all. Do you not understand that creators and creations would have differing roles? I also think you are grossly misunderstand the context in James. Many of the verses even in the NT and concerning Jewish demographics and require much context. If God exists what food is had he did not enable. What amount of food and types is he bound to place on the table of his enemies? Since we cannot always tell his enemies from friends or neutrals is not a command to feed all when possible not the right thing for us but not binding upon one who would.

It is not proof that no God exists, but it is proof that the God of the Bible does not exist. That is because logically, a loving God would easily be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without seriously injuring, and killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and without refusing to give food to starving people. That argument is irrefutable, and is morally intuitive to all loving, moral people.

That is not true and cannot be true once his purpose was established. Once the purpose of freewill was established suffering was inevitable and necessary. You have no way to insist God adopt a purpose you like or without suffering.

What you said about people rebelling against God is an absurd argument since none of the book of Genesis is historical, including the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional?

You can't possibly know that, there is no historical record to evaluate that by.

Please reply to my post #4377.

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?

Your god doesn't. It's one reason why so many of us highly-spiritual people consider Him to be a false God.

 

[Agnostic75]

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John Yung lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly. He lived for 65 years, and died. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire live. John easily qualifies as being properly evangelized. As such, most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, what if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was young, and lived there for the rest of his life, and became a Christian? Under that scenario, most Christians would say that John will have eternal life. My position is that no loving God would send John to hell if he would have become a Christian under any circumstances that he would have encountered under all possible conditions.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

John's life would have been exactly the same as Tom's life if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, and John would have become a Christian.

Since I must have answered this same claim a half dozen times and ways I give up.

Not at all since I have never previously used the arguments that I used in paragraphs 2, and 3, and you have never successfully refuted some of the arguments that I previously used.

However tell me which verse you example disproves. Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history? He offers enough evidence not an equal amount.

Hypothetical arguments can be valid. Claiming John would have believed in one place but not another is not among them.

Regarding "where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," my hypothetical arguments did not mention different people getting equal evidence since essentially, John is Tom, so what you said does make any sense. If Tom will have eternal life, it would be unfair if John does not also have eternal life since Tom and John are exact duplicates. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

Further regarding "Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," your question refers to different people, but God would not always guarantee the same amount of evidence to the same person if they had been raised under different circumstances. That is not fair.

 

[1robin]

Not at all since I have never previously used the arguments that I used in paragraphs 2, and 3, and you have never successfully refuted some of the arguments that I previously used.

You have used geographical advantage time after time after time. This was only a repackaging on the same claim.

Regarding "where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," my hypothetical arguments did not mention different people getting equal evidence since essentially, John is Tom, so what you said does make any sense. If Tom will have eternal life, it would be unfair if John does not also have eternal life since Tom and John are exact duplicates. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

Then Tom and John have no relevance. You only have an argument if you can show there is a certain expectation God comes with based on revelation he did not provide. It is not enough to show living in Korea influences faith, you must show it prohibits it past a point that should not be exceeded if God exists. As I have said over and over there are corporate judgments. Cultures loose or gain access to God by actions the same as individuals do. However you think about it most disadvantages are compensated by advantages. For instance growing up here you may become jaded with God, growing up rich you may not feel the need for God as certainly as being poor. Almost every loss has a gain.

Further regarding "Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," your question refers to different people, but God would not always guarantee the same amount of evidence to the same person if they had been raised under different circumstances. That is not fair.

I have stated that he bible either suggests either sufficient evidence will be given for judgment under Christianity or based solely on the response to what was given. It may be conditions affect faith but they do not determine it. The same way we hold our kids accountable with or without peer influence because influence is not determinative. Also not again the compensating issues. If I am in a crowd taking drugs I am also far more knowledgeable about the negative effects. Everything has at least major compensating ways of balancing and end are almost a wash.

 

[Agnostic75]

Regarding "where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," my hypothetical arguments did not mention different people getting equal evidence since essentially, John is Tom, so what you said does make any sense. If Tom will have eternal life, it would be unfair if John does not also have eternal life since Tom and John are exact duplicates. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

Then Tom and John have no relevance. You only have an argument if you can show there is a certain expectation God comes with based on revelation he did not provide.

God's revelation has nothing to do with intuitive fairness. John was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a skeptic. Tom, who is an exact clone of John, and essentially is John for all practical purposes, grew up in another country, was also sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a Christian because he was raised in different circumstances. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that different circumstances often produce different results. If John, and Tom existed, and no one knew that Tom is an exact clone of John, most conservative Christians who knew John would claim that he will not have eternal life, and most Christians who knew Tom would claim that he would have eternal life. In your opinion, will John have eternal life?

Further regarding "Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history?," your question refers to different people, but God would not always guarantee the same amount of evidence to the same person if they had been raised under different circumstances. That is not fair.

It may be conditions affect faith but they do not determine it.

I would rather say that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith.

I said:

For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians.

That conclusively proves that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith, not just a person's willingness to accept the truth as you probably claim.

Quite obviously, people who grow up in Iran are far more likely to become Muslims than people who grow up in the U.S. That easily proves that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith. The only difference between what I said about Iran, and my scenario is that the participants in my scenario have all been properly evangelized, so that eliminates any possible problems with my scenario.

It would be impossible for me to force myself to believe that a God inspired the Bible since I intuitively know that it would be unfair for John not to have eternal life, and it would also be unfair for any skeptics whose conditions determined the outcome of their faith, and would have become Christians under other circumstances.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since John would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where Tom was raised. Further, you have a problem since Tom would have become a skeptic if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised.

In all three cases, conditions determined the outcome of the use of faith.

My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

As has been said before -


The only "right" religion/Path to Deity, is the one that resonates with "YOU!"


There isn't a single religion out there that can prove it is from a Deity.



*

 

[psychoslice]

*

As has been said before -


The only "right" religion/Path to Deity, is the one that resonates with "YOU!"


There isn't a single religion out there that can prove it is from a Deity.



*

This is so true, but still they argue in vain.

 

[Sees]

People have a hard time, from fear and/or other reasons, accepting religion is man-made. Once it clicks properly, the true beauty can set in.

*

As has been said before -


The only "right" religion/Path to Deity, is the one that resonates with "YOU!"


There isn't a single religion out there that can prove it is from a Deity.



*

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

After God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

After God created humans, if he had not provided anything for their well-being, he would not have been God since part of God's compassionate nature is to sometimes be compassionate.

Since God is perfect, and unchanging regarding his nature, and is omnibenevolent, he is not able to do just any good thing, but he must do particular good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

Even if God does not have to do particular good things, whenever he does anything, it has to be good. When God does anything, he should not be commended because whenever he does anything, it has to be good.

Without choice, morality has no meaning. Without God offering a sacrifice of his own free will, Christianity has no meaning.

My premise is that the God of the Bible cannot exist because he asks people to love and accept him. That would be a deceptive request for a God who did not have free will to make.

What I meant was is that as far as we know, no man has ever learned about the Gospel message directly from God, but always by hearing about it from other people, reading books, watching television etc. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that is what would be expected. If the God of the Bible exists, there are not any possible good reasons why he should not make sure that everyone in the world hears the Gospel message.

As far as you know? What percentage of testimonies have you read? I have read or read of hundreds where no Bible was involved at all.

You still do not understand what I meant. If the God of the Bible does not exist, no one has ever heard about the Gospel message unless another human was somehow involved. Do you have evidence of even one person in the world today who learned about the Gospel message, and no other human was involved. I doubt it. Books, articles, any other writings, television, and word of mouth all involve other humans, and human effort. However, human effort alone could never ensure that everyone hear the Gospel message. Millions of people died without ever hearing the Gospel message. They easily could have heard it if God had told them about it, but that could not have happened since he does not exist. That also explains why humans can only get enough food to eat by human effort, at least when they do not starve to death.

It is much too convenient that the God of the Bible is always available to meet spiritual needs, but is often unavailable to meet physical, or financial needs.

Since the God of the Bible does not exist, it is no accident that the people who often recover the best from hurricanes are rich people, not devout Christians.

A God might exist, but not the god of any world religion. Since none of those gods exist, their followers have no choice except to claim that he is invisible, and never made tangible personal appearances. Logically, he is a deistic God.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

What you said about people rebelling against God is an absurd argument since none of the book of Genesis is historical, including the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional?

You can't possibly know that, there is no historical record to evaluate that by.

It can be inferred from common sense, logic, and reason. Please answer my questions.

Genesis 2:7 says:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

If macro evolution is true, how do you explain that verse?

Does God approve of divorce?

Does God approve of the death penalty? If so, for what offenses?

Not long ago, I made an argument that Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and that it is reasonably possible that it is God who is actually masquerading as an angel of light. You said that God has given Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil supernatural beings. However, that is a very poor, and illogical argument since if God is evil, and omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive, including you, and it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible. You are not able to provide any reasonable proof that you, a mere fallible, imperfect human, would be able to outsmart an omnipotent, omniscient evil God. No rational person would believe such a thing.

Please reply to my previous two posts.