Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Well, they can paint pictures. They can remember the exact location of watering holes hundreds of miles apart, years and years later. That's just two things.

I can paint better pictures (though they are not too great in my case), and can remember millions of things similar to where water holes are. I am not loath to admitting elephants have great memories, I can even blindly grant they have better memories because that is not the issue. They have not been to the moon, we have.

Instead of pondering in ignorance, why not read one of the links? They go into all this stuff you're wondering about.

I will make you a deal. Give me any of the links that have evidence elephants are more intelligent than we are and I will read them. Memory alone is highly doubtful but not even the issue. Justify my time and I will do as asked.

 

[1robin]

So, you really think that the cambrian explosion increases the plausibility of God. I can only imagine how it could have happened:

I do. Evidence is defined in this context as data that the inclusion of increases the likelihood of a conclusion over it's absence. Something nature is almost at a loss to describe certainly makes God more probable. Don't make it true however.

God: let there be life! .... And life was. Apparently it was good (as if God could do something suboptimal)

That is an accurate generality.

God (a couple of billion years later): this is boring. Where are all Our nice and complex creatures? Maybe We should have been more precise. Let's try again: let there be complex animals! -> boom (in 20 million years slow motion): the Cambrian explosion

Again every one of these arguments is of the type of a false optimality. I have no idea on what criteria to suggest God's time table. He was certainly not limited by time or material. I know of no reason to limit his options. Exactly how efficient does God and how do you know this?

God (a few hundred millions years later and getting impatient): where is Adam? All We see are those ugly big lizards eating each other. We could say "let there be man" but that seems now a bit too easy and lazy; after all We have to show some design and tinkering effort. Look at that little rodent hiding from the lizards in those stinking holes. That could be the ancestor of what We have in mind as the pinnacle of Our creation made in Our image. We just have to rid the lizards. Let us pollute the athmosphere with some vulcanos and tilt the orbit of one huge meteor to provide the coup de grace. Etc.

And so man arose from the ashes of the dinos and another non negligible amount of species.

Evolutionary theism in a nutshell

Please see the above. Every point you make has the exact same fault behind it. A false optimality carried to it's arbitrary logical conclusion would entail a God which had no option but to produce instantly redundant perfect being's identical to himself. Not a very coherent argument which actually obeyed in it's entirety of implications.

BTW Hello Viole. Is that your actual name or just a avatar?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can paint better pictures (though they are not too great in my case), and can remember millions of things similar to where water holes are. I am not loath to admitting elephants have great memories, I can even blindly grant they have better memories because that is not the issue. They have not been to the moon, we have.

Your ability to paint better pictures has nothing to do with the point. Neither does a trip to the moon.

Honestly, I doubt either of us could remember the exact locations of random watering holes in the desert.

I will make you a deal. Give me any of the links that have evidence elephants are more intelligent than we are and I will read them. Memory alone is highly doubtful but not even the issue. Justify my time and I will do as asked.

I’ve already done this.

 

[1robin]

I would say all of them. For every argument there is a not impossible alternative. For instance, I cannot really exclude that planets are carried around the sun by invisible angels, independently from what Einstein or Newton said.

I am surprised and pleased you realize this. Now to what it means. No argument who's sole merit is the exclusion of a positive can equal an argument which includes positive claims. Something with evidence for it is always better than a claim who's only merit is there is no evidence against it's possibility. It might even be invalid technically but I have no need to prove it so.

Things that explain everything do not explain anything. Especially if they are not supported by confirming evidence. It could be that all of physics is driven by those invisible angels that manage to harmonize relativity with quantum physics in some inscrutable but effective way.

That is kind of odd. So if I have a God which fills in where nature doesn't I am wrong, and if I have one that supersedes nature in all causal occurrences I am wrong. I guess I can only be right if I have a God that explains nothing. That is disconcerting. The bible does not give a God or physics model so I have no need to defend it. Mine posits a God and physics model and that is what I see in the evidence. Usually God is an agent explanation and physics a mechanism explanation.

Wow. That was easy. The holy grail of physics finally found! I doubt, I will get a Nobel prize for that discovery though. Bummer. Those pesky scientists with a materialistic and exclusivist anti-angel agenda

I hate it when I can't follow a joke. Reminds me of Larry David (Seinfeld's creator) who looked at the sea and said he was disappointed and didn't get it.

I wonder why. After all, if you are more ready to accept primates, you should be equally ready to accept that the direct ancestors of primates were not primates and so on. Where is appropriate to stop? Or do you think that God created intermediate primates from scratch instead of going directly to His goal? Why?

It is a little easier to buy the idea of descent of a primate from a primate, than a primate from a squid or bacteria. It also goes so astronomically far back in time I lose any confidence anyone knows anything certain.

I make the assumption here that you understood that I do not mean that fish are our direct ancestors.

No, but regardless I thought fish are all land animals ancestors in theory.

For your information: this atheist thinks that young earth creationists who hold that Adam had no ancestors are more intellectually coherent than theists who try to accomodate scientific evidence in some inevitably awkward way. I think both positions are equally absurd, but the formers seem to get into less problems. For starters, they have only one front to fight. If you hit the bottom where you are forced to admit that God did it from scratch at some point, then let Him have done the whole package from scratch. Your Baptist church will approve, probably.

Well my primary mission here is not to earn Voile's esteem. It is to defend truth as best I can identify it. I held a dogmatic creationist (or literalist) view for many years but I could not justify at least the dogmatic part, theologically. IOW the science did not move me, theology did. Huge swaths of time in Genesis have been dominant interpretations long before any evolutionist appeared in history. No Hebrew calendar includes the pre-Adam days in any calendars because they did not see them as earth centric 24 hour periods. That does not mean I am unaware of pages of scientific data that suggest a young earth. I bet part of the reason you like more dogmatic folks is that they are easier to dismiss you think. I hold no firm position about any detail in the Pentateuch. I tried very hard to find them but gave it up. Pre-history is just too unknown to correlate claims with. My faith does not depend on a single verse Moses wrote so I lack any motivation to relentlessly demand dogmatic positions about those events. I do not argue with evolutionary assumptions because I buy into them. I do so because granting that common ground with a secular person which shares no other common ground does little to relegate God to non-necessity. I attempt to meet you where you are, not that I deny or accept the facts you would.

 

[1robin]

We are learning more and more than intelligence doesn't rely merely on brain size. Other factors like brain structure and organization of neurons and synapses (more specifically in the left prefrontal cortex, left temporal cortex and left parietal cortex) and molecular capacity within synapses (which explains why birds, for example, are quite intelligent despite the fact that their brains are rather small) have been demonstrated to play central roles in intelligence.

Apparently, you can't just look at a brain and determine that it's small so the creature must be stupid.

And as I already pointed out studies indicate that the cognitive processing capabilities of Asian elephants exceed that of any primate species due to the fact that they possess the greatest volume of cerebral cortex of all known land animals. Do you consider paintings good enough to represent abstract thought?

Adding complexity here is not changing anything. Human beings whether it is in the cortex, the frontal lobe, the temporal lobe, or our big toes have capacities gaps between all other creatures biology has no good explanations for. Whether physical, soul-ish, spiritual, or supernatural we are radically different in capacity. No matter which one you pick we are extremely unique. A more extreme gap does not exist in evolutionary history.

Just like the baby issue I did not bring up brain size. Someone else did and I just commented on it. I have consistently said I am not claiming anything about brain size. I even gave examples of bigger yet far less capable brains in evolution. So lets drop memory and brain size. They are not part of my position.

 

[1robin]

Your ability to paint better pictures has nothing to do with the point. Neither does a trip to the moon.

Honestly, I doubt either of us could remember the exact locations of random watering holes in the desert.

No memory has nothing to do with this. My original claim was about intellectual capacity. Mostly about abstract thought, self awareness, moral faculties and the like. You brought up memory and ignored the actual issue at hand. Water holes and memory are irrelevant, Apollo 5 is relevant.

I’ve already done this.

I doubt it and since you continue to harp on memory and ignore the original claim I made I am virtually certain my doubt is valid.

 

[idav]

I am surprised and pleased you realize this. Now to what it means. No argument who's sole merit is the exclusion of a positive can equal an argument which includes positive claims. Something with evidence for it is always better than a claim who's only merit is there is no evidence against it's possibility. It might even be invalid technically but I have no need to prove it so.

I don't buy that one bit. Evidence for a positive claim has to be agreed upon. Excluding a claim that god exists is within the right of the atheist who wouldn't consider any of the theists claim as actual evidence. Evidence against its possibility is simply lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim. No, I believe atheists have the upper hand there especially when theists can't present sufficient evidence of that something simply existing.

Adding complexity here is not changing anything. Human beings whether it is in the cortex, the frontal lobe, the temporal lobe, or our big toes have capacities gaps between all other creatures biology has no good explanations for. Whether physical, soul-ish, spiritual, or supernatural we are radically different in capacity. No matter which one you pick we are extremely unique. A more extreme gap does not exist in evolutionary history.

We know humans are extraordinary but I can't fathom how that means evolution doesn't exist. Any gap we have encountered has been explainable via evolutionary theory.

Not to mention that other great apes as well as dolphins are extraordinarily intelligent comparable to that of humans(I won't mention it cause you refuse to believe it lol).

There is no extreme gap, 3% is hardly anything in the scheme of things. Cool, we are special, well so are the other great apes far as we can tell. Much more than any other species. Great apes must have been designed to be godlike cause they are all so far advanced above the rest of the animal kingdom.

Even neanderthals show that humans are not all that special. The earth has been spitting out hundreds of variations of humanoids like animals so I really don't see any issue with evolution and the emergence of intelligence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Adding complexity here is not changing anything. Human beings whether it is in the cortex, the frontal lobe, the temporal lobe, or our big toes have capacities gaps between all other creatures biology has no good explanations for. Whether physical, soul-ish, spiritual, or supernatural we are radically different in capacity. No matter which one you pick we are extremely unique. A more extreme gap does not exist in evolutionary history.

What I'm trying to point out is that we are finding more and more that the gap isn't as gigantic as we've always thought it was.

Just like the baby issue I did not bring up brain size. Someone else did and I just commented on it. I have consistently said I am not claiming anything about brain size. I even gave examples of bigger yet far less capable brains in evolution. So lets drop memory and brain size. They are not part of my position.

I think you mentioned brain size a bunch of times which is why we're currently talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No memory has nothing to do with this. My original claim was about intellectual capacity. Mostly about abstract thought, self awareness, moral faculties and the like. You brought up memory and ignored the actual issue at hand. Water holes and memory are irrelevant, Apollo 5 is relevant.

I doubt it and since you continue to harp on memory and ignore the original claim I made I am virtually certain my doubt is valid.

I don't know how you can doubt anything considering you didn't even look at any of the links.

 

[Clear]

post one of two

1)REGARDING THE EFFORT TO CORRECT, REFORM, AND IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF BIBLICAL TEXTS

CG DIDYMUS said : “ For example, since the basic Christian message, what has happened to Christianity? Catholicism evolved, then Protestantism. Outside of Christianity, there was Islam and, more recently, the Baha'i Faith. If there is one truth, why do things keep changing? I think it's because there is a spiritual reality, but none of us really knows exactly what it is. Some forms of Christianity has stripped down and gotten back to the bare bones of what they believe Christianity should be. To me, that is still a type of "evolving." And it's not exclusive to Christianity. All religions have their sects that do that. And they all have their more liberal sects that try to find commonality between all religions. They also all have their offshoot sects that have a new "prophet" with a new purer message. Sorry, but all of it still looks like nobody has it together. All of them are still in a process of evolving or "progressing. # 5020

1ROBIN said : “The Church has and should constantly reform it's self. However there is no need to reform the bible and there has been very little attempt to.”# 5033

I just wanted to correct 1Robin’s statement that the biblical text needs no “reform” and his incorrect assumption that there has been no effort and attempts being made to correct and improve the biblical text. There is a great effort going on to correct and improve biblical texts and to determine what the earliest versions of sacred literature actually said.

The average “Sunday school” Christian probably is not aware of the need for and the great and ongoing tremendous effort that IS going on to “reform” the old and new testament biblical texts. There is a vast amount of effort and work being put into “reforming” the biblical text that reflects a desire to determine what the earliest bibles might have looked like and what they might have said. We’ve always known that there were problems in the various texts. For example, the Talmud tells us that hilkiah found three versions of the torah in the temple and, since they did not know which was the correct version, they used the rule of majority to make a fourth version which they then used after Josiah’s time. Wiston reminds us that Josephus also had YET another version from the temple in approx. 70 a.d. from which he took his history that is yet even more different and has a much fuller history and explains much that is missing from current “received” Hebrew torahs the Masoretes created.

Remember also, that whichever version the later jews ended up with, it came to be rendered from the earlier paleo-Hebrew that lacked vowel. It was then interpreted into a different hebrew and vowels were added according to the interpretation of editors of the text. The masoretes standardized these points in their receive text hundreds of years after jesus died. (even after the early versions of the Christians “New Covenant” text was taking place).

The problem is just as bad when one considers the difficulties in determining and reforming and correcting the Christian texts. It has been an ongoing effort to determine what the earliest Christian “New Covenant” might have looked like and what the original texts might have said. Just as the Jewish texts continue to Change to reflect new data, the Christian New Covenant also evolves and changes to reflect increasing knowledge from different data streams.




2)REGARDING CG DIDYMUS’ OBSERVATION THAT MULTIPLE OPPOSING THEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS HAVE EVOLVED AND CONTINUE TO EVOLVE IN CHRISTIANITY (AND OTHER RELIGIONS)


Consider the recent controversy concerning infants and whether they are good or whether infants are evil.

The later Christian theory that infants are evil and sin constantly and are born sinful and morally depraved is the opposite position of the Christian belief that infants are completely innocent of sin when born; they do not sin as infants and they are not morally depraved as infants.

If a Christian has been exposed to the theological position of infant “depravity”, they may simply not be aware of the Christian position that infants are morally innocent. They may simply teach infant depravity instead of infant innocence simply due to a limited theological exposure. If forum debates have shown readers anything, it is that there are multiple such differing beliefs on many, many issues between various Christian theologies that developed as one leaves the earliest ages of the original Christian religious movement to the current era. Christianity may have started out with a single, coherent set of beliefs, but after the death of Christ and the apostles, many doctrinal schisms occurred and the schisms and theories are not decreasing in numbers.

Consider early textual descriptions of Adam were positive and he was honored (rather than negative and dishonored) :

Many early descriptions do not place Adams gaining of moral wisdom in a negative context, but instead honor Adam and the gaining of understanding and knowledge. For example, in 4Q504 (506) of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the text honors God and Adam because “…You have done wonders of old, and awesome deeds long ago. You fashioned Adam, our father, in the image of Your glory; You breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and filled him with understanding and knowledge. You set him to rule over the garden of Eden that you had planted. [...]…and to walk about in a glorious land…. In this early context God intended to fill adam with understanding and knowledge from the beginning and this was a good thing

In this context of honoring adam, the early dead sea scroll commentary of psalms speaks of those who “...will not be put to shame in an evil time (37:19)” The text itself tells us that “[This refers to] the ones who return from the wilderness, who will live a thousand generations in virtue. To them and their descendants belong all the heritage of Adam for ever.” COMMENTARIES ON PSALMS 4Q 171 Frags. 1-2 (Column 2) The heritage of Adam was not merely knowledge and wisdom, but knowledge and wisdom was a blessing, not a curse.

Thus, in speaking of the spirit of God that “shepherded” individuals, it was described as being “Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. Indeed, God has chosen them for an eternal covenant; all the glory of Adam shall be theirs alone.”



post two of two follows
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

post two of two


This endowment of knowledge and wisdom and glory associated with Adam was the very thing that was the heritage given to Adams descendants, thus the verse continues saying that “... All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness. As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. He foreknows the outworking of their deeds for all the ages of eternity. He has granted them dominion over humanity, so imparting knowledge of good and evil, deciding the fate of every living being by the measure of which spirit predominates in him, until the day of the appointed visitation.” CHARTER 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26

The Haggadic literature not only honors Adam for his wisdom, but for his prophetic relationship to God. For example, the Haggadah says “... without the gift of the holy spirit, Adam could not have found names for all; he was in very truth a prophet, and his wisdom a prophetic quality. (Haggadah, the Ideal Man)

If you remember the early texts concerning the Fall of Lucifer and it’s relationship to Adam, you will remember the context underlying the honoring of Adam and his wisdom. Jewish Haggadah describes “ The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels...After Adam had been endowed with a soul, God invited all the angels to come and pay him reverence and honor. Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven, with twelve wings, instead of six like all the others, refused to pay heed to the behest of God, saying, “You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!”

Gods defense of Adam refers to the very knowledge and wisdom Adam was to obtain once he was placed in the Garden. God replied: “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”The Haggadah - Fall of Satan).

During the subsequent battle of wits between Satan and Adam, Adam demonstrates superior wisdom, “Thus Adam divined the proper name, and Satan was forced to acknowledge the superiority of the first man. Nevertheless ....he refused to honor Adam as he had been bidden....The host of angels led by him did likewise... and after this disagreement escalates into the war in heaven as described in multiple, multiple Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts (the main early doctrinal agreement in these three Abrahamic traditions), At once God flung Satan and his host out of Heaven, down to the earth, and from that moment dates the enmity between Satan and man. The Haggadah - Fall of Satan



GOD CONTINUES TO GIVE ADAM THE VERY KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM ADAM HAD WANTED

The actual moral knowledge and wisdom that Eve (and then Adam) wanted to gain was NOT an evil thing. If it had been evil or sin to obtain this moral wisdom, God would not have continued to support the pair in obtaining the very moral knowledge and wisdom the couple sought.


THE CONDITION OF IGNORANCE IS LAMENTABLE, MORESO THAN ANY TRANSGRESSION ADAM HAD IN HIS NATURE TO COMMIT

“10 From invisible and visible substances I created man. From both his natures come both death and life. And (as my) image he knows the word like (no) other....11 and on the earth I assigned him to be a second angel, honored and great and glorious. 12 And I assigned him to be a king, to reign on the earth, and to have my wisdom. And there was nothing comparable to him on the earth, even among my creatures that exist.... 15 And I gave him his free will; and I pointed out to him the two ways –light and darkness. And I said to him, ‘this is good for you, but that is bad’; so that I might come to know whether he has love toward me or abhorrence, and so that it might become plain who among his race loves me. 16 Whereas I have come to know his nature, he does not know his own nature. That is why ignorance is more lamentable than the sin such as it is in him to sin.” 2nd Enoch 30:10-17

In these traditions, Adam, in teaching his son Seth, describes messengers sent from God to teach Adam about moral knowledge and understanding as it related to the history of mankind. Adam said : : “Now I was sleeping in the thought of my heart, and I saw before me three men whose appearance I could not recognize because they were not from the powers of the God who created me. They surpassed [those powers in their] glory. The men [spoke] , saying to me, ‘Rise up, Adam, from the sleep of death, and hear about the aeon and the seed of that man to whom life has come, the one who came forth from you and from Eve your wife. When I heard these words from those great men who stood before me, we sighted in our hearts, I and Eve. And the Lord, the God who created us, stood in our presence and said to us, ‘Adam, why were you sighing in your hearts? Do you not know that I am God who created you, and that I breathed into you a spirit of life for a living soul?’ “Then darkness fell over our eyes. Then the god who created us created a son from himself [and Eve your mother]...”[then I was defiled] in the thought of my heart. I recognized a sweet desire for your mother. Then the vigor of our eternal knowledge perished in us, and feebleness pursued us. For this reason the days of our life became few, for I knew that I had become subject to the power of death. “Now then, my son Seth, I will reveal to you what was revealed to me by those men whom I once saw before me. V1 p712-713 The Apocalypse of Adam 2:1-6-7, ch 3:1; (He then tells of the time of Noah and the future. );


In this context, God not only knows beforehand that Adam is going to choose to Gain moral wisdom and knowledge but he ensures it through Eve. The tradition has God describing this thusly : And I said, “After sin there is nothing for it but death.’ 17 And I assigned a shade for him; and I imposed sleep upon him, and he fell asleep. `And while he was sleeping, I took from him a rib. And I created for him a wife, so that death might come to him by his wife.” 2nd Enoch 30:10-17


The Christian text, Ezra agrees that though it was “... he who established disobedience made this (man) sin. (i.e. Lucifer)” Yet “If you had not given him Eve, the serpent would never have deceived her.” Greek apo Ezra 2:1, 10-17;

This is partly why the prophet Sedrach said to God : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master. You commanded your angels to worship Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not worship him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands. If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? Who can fight against an invisible spirit? He enters the hearts of men like a smoke and teaches them all kinds of sin. He even fights against you, the immortal God, and so what can pitiful man do against him..... The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7;

The point is that, one can receive far different versions of Judaism and Christian doctrine, depending upon the time period and the origin of the opinion. I do not think that the later Christian interpretation that Adam and Eve’s desire to gain moral wisdom was unexpected and unwanted is any more rational and logical than the early interpretation that Adam and Eve’s desire to gain moral wisdom was not only expected, but a central and important point in God’s plan to give mankind the very moral wisdom they sought in the Garden. CG DIDYMUS is correct, that Judaic and Christians doctrines change and evolve in different geographical areas and over different time periods.

I do not believe that the later Christian worldviews where God creates all things from nothing (ex-nihilo) creation can divest God of evil as logically as the earlier worldviews where he organizes (creates) all things from pre-existing matter.
I do not believe that the later Christian worldviews where God creates the spirits of mankind at a moment and ex-nihilo (out of nothing and with arbitrary moral characteristics) can divest God of evil as logically and as reasonably as the earlier Christian worldviews where spirits exist for significant time periods before they enter mortality through birth.



Clear
σιφινενεσεω

 

[viole]

Well my primary mission here is not to earn Voile's esteem. It is to defend truth as best I can identify it. I held a dogmatic creationist (or literalist) view for many years but I could not justify at least the dogmatic part, theologically. IOW the science did not move me, theology did. Huge swaths of time in Genesis have been dominant interpretations long before any evolutionist appeared in history. No Hebrew calendar includes the pre-Adam days in any calendars because they did not see them as earth centric 24 hour periods. That does not mean I am unaware of pages of scientific data that suggest a young earth. I bet part of the reason you like more dogmatic folks is that they are easier to dismiss you think. I hold no firm position about any detail in the Pentateuch. I tried very hard to find them but gave it up. Pre-history is just too unknown to correlate claims with. My faith does not depend on a single verse Moses wrote so I lack any motivation to relentlessly demand dogmatic positions about those events. I do not argue with evolutionary assumptions because I buy into them. I do so because granting that common ground with a secular person which shares no other common ground does little to relegate God to non-necessity. I attempt to meet you where you are, not that I deny or accept the facts you would.

You don't need to earn anything. If I did not esteem you I would not spend so much time for your posts. And before people complain that I do not esteem them because I do not spend so much time with them, I would like to point out that my posting to someone is a sufficient but not necessary condition for my esteem. But it is true that I tend to avoid what i consider hopeless.

But this is an important point since most atheists do not agree with me. They sort of think that YEC are dangerous crackpots while more liberal Christians are somehow more intellectually consistent. Maybe this finds a motivation in countries were education is in danger and evolutionary theists provide support to keep on teaching science. A sort of PR function.

But I come from a country/continent where this danger does not exist and so i feel free to say things without a political angle.

I don't think that YEC are easier to knock down. i actually think that it is impossible. When one refutes evidence at such a basic level, any further discussion is pointless.

On the other hand, I also think that they are more consistent. They refute disconfirming evidence against the literacy of the Bible, period. Such a clear view has a sort of intellectually honesty and purity. They take the fire, but are confident to be on the side of truth. They do not compromise.

In comparison, the more metaphoric/liberal camp is a mess. Some accept the scientific orthodoxy, others a mix of speciation and kindation, primates yes, fish no, fish yes, some a tinkering God, others a God that does not tinker, gay yes, gay no, hell yes, hell no, soul evolved, soul did not evolve, etc. in general, they demote literacy to metaphor depending on the latest discovery, which gives evidence who they really give priority to. Their God tells me more about themselves than about God Himself, which is surprising considering that they claim to know God and have relationships with them.

And this is why I prefer to engage those.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. My name is an avatar taken from a J. Vance character. My real name requires a special keyboard to be spelled out correctly.

 

[1robin]

I don't buy that one bit. Evidence for a positive claim has to be agreed upon. Excluding a claim that god exists is within the right of the atheist who wouldn't consider any of the theists claim as actual evidence. Evidence against its possibility is simply lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim. No, I believe atheists have the upper hand there especially when theists can't present sufficient evidence of that something simply existing.

Evidence for a positive claim does not have to be and rarely is agreed upon. There are still flat earther's and ancient alien people out there. Nor even if it had to be yet lacked it would that make it equal with an argument who's sole merit is that it is not impossible. I think that type of argument is the weakest possible that can still be technically valid.

I was not talking about what rights an atheist has (though without God no one has any objective rights to anything). I was talking about justification in equating two massively unequal arguments.

We know humans are extraordinary but I can't fathom how that means evolution doesn't exist. Any gap we have encountered has been explainable via evolutionary theory.

I did not say it did. I said evolution even if it is true doe snot explain the quantum leap between humans and primates. It may explain a million other things but not that.

Not to mention that other great apes as well as dolphins are extraordinarily intelligent comparable to that of humans(I won't mention it cause you refuse to believe it lol).

They are not. They are reasonable advanced for animals they are no where near a human. I just realized I was done on this issue. So I will leave it there.

There is no extreme gap, 3% is hardly anything in the scheme of things. Cool, we are special, well so are the other great apes far as we can tell. Much more than any other species. Great apes must have been designed to be godlike cause they are all so far advanced above the rest of the animal kingdom.

3% genetic difference is too little (in my view) to explain the astronomic........... Dang it I did it again. I am not wasting time on this any longer.

 

[1robin]

What I'm trying to point out is that we are finding more and more that the gap isn't as gigantic as we've always thought it was.

I take it we have found the city's primates have built, the universities dolphins have built, the space stations horses use? If not the we have no made it out of the starting gate on the path you describe.

I think you mentioned brain size a bunch of times which is why we're currently talking about.

I think I did but it was always to show that it is not the governing factor here. I mentioned it to exclude it because others had introduced it, and that only increased it's inclusion. Some vicious cycle of futility or something.

 

[1robin]

I don't know how you can doubt anything considering you didn't even look at any of the links.

I offered to if you pointed out which was relevant to what I was talking about and why.

 

[1robin]

I just wanted to correct 1Robin’s statement that the biblical text needs no “reform” and his incorrect assumption that there has been no effort and attempts being made to correct and improve the biblical text. There is a great effort going on to correct and improve biblical texts and to determine what the earliest versions of sacred literature actually said.

Clear you formatting style is the most inconvenient to reply to I have seen. I have to read most of it to even see if it's to me, it is hard to quote because you use a lot of formatting tools, and it is long. No actual faults there just pointing it out.

You do not need to correct me for something I did not state. I did not say the bible has never been added to. It just has not been added to that much. Almost every error in the 5% it does contain is simple mistakes like two n's in John, or skipping a line, they are virtually al known and were never intentional. Now that does leave some intentional revision like the last chapter of Mathew (if I remember correctly) and a few additional words or changes to single words. However these are very few and all known and indicated in all modern bibles. The bible is extraordinarily static and the dead sea scrolls proved that beyond contention. So yes some editing, no not a meaningful amount and none in core doctrine.

The average “Sunday school” Christian probably is not aware of the need for and the great and ongoing tremendous effort that IS going on to “reform” the old and new testament biblical texts. There is a vast amount of effort and work being put into “reforming” the biblical text that reflects a desire to determine what the earliest bibles might have looked like and what they might have said. We’ve always known that there were problems in the various texts. For example, the Talmud tells us that hilkiah found three versions of the torah in the temple and, since they did not know which was the correct version, they used the rule of majority to make a fourth version which they then used after Josiah’s time. Wiston reminds us that Josephus also had YET another version from the temple in approx. 70 a.d. from which he took his history that is yet even more different and has a much fuller history and explains much that is missing from current “received” Hebrew torahs the Masoretes created.

This sound more like your saying we need to keep investigating which I agree with but even after 2000 years of investigation we have virtually the same text as they did 1800 years ago. If you are including here extra biblical texts that is a subject I have no stake in. I do not grant authority to extra canonical works so have no need to defend them. Regardless I am for any challenge and any investigation, but see little need for editing unless used to remove the few previous edits.

Remember also, that whichever version the later jews ended up with, it came to be rendered from the earlier paleo-Hebrew that lacked vowel. It was then interpreted into a different hebrew and vowels were added according to the interpretation of editors of the text. The masoretes standardized these points in their receive text hundreds of years after jesus died. (even after the early versions of the Christians “New Covenant” text was taking place).

That is a source material issues and extra biblical points. Neither of which I made any claims about.

The problem is just as bad when one considers the difficulties in determining and reforming and correcting the Christian texts. It has been an ongoing effort to determine what the earliest Christian “New Covenant” might have looked like and what the original texts might have said. Just as the Jewish texts continue to Change to reflect new data, the Christian New Covenant also evolves and changes to reflect increasing knowledge from different data streams.

You seem to give a lot of validity to tradition of view points. I am talking about the text. It contains precious little intentional changes from it earliest periods. Let me give you a statement by the most famous NT critic alive.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

Now if that is the worst case scenario a critical scholar can invent we are in pretty good shape.

 

[1robin]

You don't need to earn anything. If I did not esteem you I would not spend so much time for your posts. And before people complain that I do not esteem them because I do not spend so much time with them, I would like to point out that my posting to someone is a sufficient but not necessary condition for my esteem. But it is true that I tend to avoid what i consider hopeless.

Well I am glad you covered all the bases there. The point I was making is that approval is not my goal so disapproval is not relevant. I'm just trying to save you from typing a bit.

But this is an important point since most atheists do not agree with me. They sort of think that YEC are dangerous crackpots while more liberal Christians are somehow more intellectually consistent. Maybe this finds a motivation in countries were education is in danger and evolutionary theists provide support to keep on teaching science. A sort of PR function.

I know why you think the way you do, it has merit from a certain view point. You give them at least the respect for having the courage to defend the surface claims of the bible even if unpopular with science. I get that. I also get the counter view that they are nuts. I was pointing out that IMO the best position is a deeper than surface level understanding. I get my theology from scholars not Sunday school teachers nor reactionaries trying to fit it into the latest discovery. So it is founded on much more than a church lesson place. I do not like dogmatic views and believe Catholicism has done more damage to Christianity by mandating my way or the highway interpretations than any other group. My views are primarily a synthesis from many schools of thought and may appear at times to be but are not influenced by other factors like discoveries in evolution or cosmology.

But I come from a country/continent where this danger does not exist and so i feel free to say things without a political angle.

Where what does not exist?

I don't think that YEC are easier to knock down. i actually think that it is impossible. When one refutes evidence at such a basic level, any further discussion is pointless.

If I implied that was your motivation I withdraw that. It was presumptuous. Like I said I used to hold a young earth view. I know the strength of the position. I eventually found it theologically unnecessary. It may be true but the opposite view can be held on the very few verses that deal with age without violating any exegetical or hermeneutic standards. My is there is not enough information in the half dozen verses to know the specific meanings of days in genesis and the view they are long epochs of time existing long before and scientific evidence suggested it might be the case. The Cabalists were insistent on the view in particular.

On the other hand, I also think that they are more consistent. They refute disconfirming evidence against the literacy of the Bible, period. Such a clear view has a sort of intellectually honesty and purity. They take the fire, but are confident to be on the side of truth. They do not compromise.

I could argue wither case and have but I find a young earth less defensible than a day age. I find it both theological less defensible and scientifically less defensible but I have certainly not closed my mind to the possibility the earth is young or that that is what the text implied. A book called the science of God by Schroeder gives the historical views on Genesis through history. What they were, who held what, and why? I recommend at least the chapters on the issue.

In comparison, the more metaphoric/liberal camp is a mess. Some accept the scientific orthodoxy, others a mix of speciation and kindation, primates yes, fish no, fish yes, some a tinkering God, others a God that does not tinker, gay yes, gay no, hell yes, hell no, soul evolved, soul did not evolve, etc. in general, they demote literacy to metaphor depending on the latest discovery, which gives evidence who they really give priority to. Their God tells me more about themselves than about God Himself, which is surprising considering that they claim to know God and have relationships with them.

This is a whole other subject. Cosmology to evolution is quite a jump. I do not see how anyone could hold a no-evolution position. The bible both acknowledges it and restricts it. The principle text is:

New International Version
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so

So I easily have change but also a limit to change. Now you may object that kind is generic but my response is that this verse has nothing to do with core beliefs. It is not a scientific text, it speeds through creation in maybe a chapter or two. You said "mess", compared to what? Am I to expect God to have given the DNA sequences and mutation rates to people who could barely add, 5000 years ago, in a book about the supernatural? It is only a mess if used out of context for a purpose it does not have.

And this is why I prefer to engage those.

I will take you at your word. I have no reason not to.

[/quote]
P.S. My name is an avatar taken from a J. Vance character. My real name requires a special keyboard to be spelled out correctly.[/QUOTE] Don't know J. Vance but won't trouble you for more explanations.

 

[idav]

Evidence for a positive claim does not have to be and rarely is agreed upon. There are still flat earther's and ancient alien people out there. Nor even if it had to be yet lacked it would that make it equal with an argument who's sole merit is that it is not impossible. I think that type of argument is the weakest possible that can still be technically valid.

I was not talking about what rights an atheist has (though without God no one has any objective rights to anything). I was talking about justification in equating two massively unequal arguments.

I did not say it did. I said evolution even if it is true doe snot explain the quantum leap between humans and primates. It may explain a million other things but not that.

They are not. They are reasonable advanced for animals they are no where near a human. I just realized I was done on this issue. So I will leave it there.

3% genetic difference is too little (in my view) to explain the astronomic........... Dang it I did it again. I am not wasting time on this any longer.

It is a fact that great apes and dolphins are self aware like humans. That is a quantum leap in evolution that several species on this planet have achieved. Besides that, it makes little sense to say evolution is false just cause one species appears more advanced than others. One of the things evolution does is explain diversity, why some weak and some strong, some small and some big, some smart some dumb etc.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE

1) 1Robin said : “You do not need to correct me for something I did not state.”

Hi 1Robin : I was addressing forum members in an attempt to correct what you did state. 1robin said :“…[FONT=&quot] there is no need to reform the bible and there has been very little attempt to[/FONT][FONT=&quot].”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]# 5033[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In this day of access to quick information, more individuals are both aware of the need to “reform” and correct biblical texts and they are, increasingly aware of the fact that no one actually knows what the original texts said in the face of the desire to know what the original texts did say. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Individuals are also increasingly aware of the tremendous amount of ongoing effort to “reform” and “correct” biblical texts. I very much agree with your prior point that the experience of revelation from God to an individual is powerful evidence to the individual that God exists and thus, being able to admit errors in sacred texts has little negative effect on the conviction of one who receives authentic revelation from an existing God. To them[FONT=&quot], knowledge of textual errors is[/FONT] like water offa ducks back.[/FONT] For them, admitting any type of reform is needed either in an imperfect individual or in an imperfect text doesn't affect either God's existence or the persons' relationship, nor the persons spiritual direction and Goals.
[FONT=&quot]
However, regarding the efforts to “reform” and “correct” and “determine” the biblical texts : Since no one know what the original biblical text looked like, either Old or New Testament, it is a difficult and slow process to determine what texts are original and what are added and e[FONT=&quot]specially what is missing [FONT=&quot]in[/FONT] the later texts that should ha[FONT=&quot]ve been there[/FONT][/FONT]. As you mentioned once, the stories existed as oral stories before they were written and thus there are multiple versions of early texts and traditions in existence.

In discussing the need to “reform” and “repair” and “correct” biblical texts, I am not talking mainly about the obvious additions you refer to (that is, stories and references which are spurious and incorrect, but have been added to biblical texts), but I am also referring to textual omissions and mis-interpretations (both ancient and modern) as well. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Even if we could determine what the original text actually said for either old or new covenant texts, this corrected text would do little to prevent the skewed and individual personal interpretations that create multiple conflicting doctrines to evolve among multiple Christian movements who use the very same biblical text to support conflicting doctrines in the same way that CG DIDYMUS has suggested. [/FONT]


2) 1Robin claimed : “ The bible is extraordinarily static and the dead sea scrolls proved that beyond contention. “

It’s counterproductive to overstate a claim when agnostics and athiests can so easily disprove it. I assume you are not particularly and personally familiar with the changes brought on by the DSS, but are simply repeating a statement you heard someone else make or that someone else wrote? (else you would not have made the statement&#8230.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls cannot tell us much about the earliest proto-hebrew texts (which language the Hebrews adopted from the canaanites before they adopted national hebrew), they can tell us that the later Masoretic texts are quite similar to those of approx. 70 a.d. in many cases.

However, the dead sea scrolls also reveal that later biblical texts differ radically from the early Masoretic text in some instances. Often the differences indicate loss of naratives that used to be in early texts. Thus, the DDS gives us solid evidence of CD DIDYMUS’ claim as well as specific instances of textual evolution in action.

The Dead Sea Scrolls from the peri-c.e. era (approx. 70 a.d.) have been a motivating force of more specific changes to Old Covenantal texts and contexts than almost any other textual discoveries of the last two centuries. They’ve also changed entire base paradigms regarding peri c.e. era Judaism and Christianity, their doctrines and practices, in profound ways. The Dead Sea Scrolls also are contributing to the “evolution” of both theology and text that CG DIDYMUS has described.

For example : Anciently, Justyn Martyr claimed in his Debate with the Jew Trypho, that Jewish textual narratives changed and some of the lost or corrupted data that would have made the scriptures more clear that Jesus was the very Messiah. (Whether the Jews would have accepted Jesus if such changes had not occurred in their scriptures is another matter) The DSS confirm that much is missing in current texts and the early canon was not closed to these jews.


An example of modern textual evolution (correction) of biblical text:
The DSS text of O.T. Samuel is an example of original narratives lost to modern biblical text and the more correct DSS text allowed us to correct missing biblical text (some of which we did not even know was missing&#8230. For example, the DSS text adds a missing paragraph to 1 Samuel 11:1. This single correction represents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the modern Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts IN THIS SINGLE VERSE (that is, more than half of the narrative is missing in modern bibles).

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the corrected Jewish text reads: "And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.


BIBLICAL TEXTUAL EVOLUTION
Most of us that grew up reading Bezae based King James Bibles realize that switching to other bibles that had less reliance on Bezae were quite different (Codex Bezaes Book of Acts is more than 10% longer than most other versions of Acts). If you need examples to prove the importance of the many, many, small but important differences in even the known Greek biblical texts, we can discuss this, or you can trust my claim that there are many, many, many differences that are quite important in their additive effect on Christian theology.
The on-going effort by the individuals and teams that create the bibles you read are themselves (often) trying to reform and correct the biblical text they produce and then sell to you for your consumption. In many cases, we know the text is incorrect, but are not sure what the correction should be and so translations simply continue the errors in texts.

Clearly, in the case of the Dead Sea Scroll text, the older text is frequently superior to the later Old covenantal texts.. This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

It is not just the a "few naratives" that are missing, nor even merely short stories, but entire BOOKS are missing from the current Jewish narratives. For example Joshua 10 relates the "sun stool still, and the moon stopped",but it refers us to a book missing from the Jewish narrative when it says: "Is this not written in the Book of Jasher?"(Josh 10:13). It is not just this narrative that could benefit from restoration of excluded narratives and entire books, but MANY other stories cannot BE understood without referencing materials the Jews either excluded or did not include in their later records that ultimately became the Old Testament.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


EVEN REFORMING (CORRECTING) BIBLICAL TEXT WILL NOT PREVENT FURTHER DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH VARYING INTERPRETATIONS OF WHATEVER TEXT ONE ADOPTS (EVEN CORRECT TEXT)
As I pointed out, even the most basic stories in the later biblical text have different versions and conflicting interpretations. Just as an infant is sinful in your interpretation, the infant was innocent to the early Christian tradition. Just as Adams gaining of moral wisdom was a “mistake” in many modern Christian movements, it was not only according to God’s plan in early Judeo-Christian traditions, but it was THE plan from the beginning. Very basic and long-assumed translations are changing as we gain more and better information.


Robin, while you are considering the concept of biblical errors and the need and efforts to reform the biblical texts, you have (as far as I am able to tell), left my last post to you, unanswered. It regarded your prior unsettled claim that God’s “standard” for salvation is moral “perfection”.

[FONT=&quot]Hi 1ROBIN :

I read your reply but was so very busy today at work I can only take a small part of it to comment upon and desire clarification.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Regarding multiple incompatible claims to virtual certainty about competing theories [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I understand your claim : “I’m giving you virtually certainties about salvation”.

You must understand that your own “virtual certainties” must compete with other incompatible and different “virtual certainties” claimed by other Christians and theists. The abuse of the claim to “know” something is true is NOT doing Christianity nor Christ any favors. You must, at some point, come to grips with the effect of the myriads of such claims on Agnostics, athiests and non-christians as they are bombarded with such claims from a multitude of Christians who espouse varying incompatible and competing theories.

Since the readers obviously feel “mere opinions” from others are more credible than “virtual certainties” from you, I hope you will learn to speak with more accuracy and less hyperbole and in greater honesty to others you are trying to influence. I am not your enemy, but you should understand that much of your difficulty in having influence with others beating up on your theories and then discarding them, is your tendency to unfairly and deceptively overstate Christian virtues while unfairly minimalizing the virtues of all others. This tendency to skew data (unfairly in the Christians favor) casts all other things you say into disrepute, and is, I believe, the reason your credibility and influence isn’t greater. I think you are capable of good logic and reason, but you need to be much, much, more careful with your claims. This is just an observation 1robin, you can take it or leave it, but I hope you consider it.

Regarding your theories :

Can we break your expanding theories down into smaller pieces so as to make the discussion more simple. If you theorize that one must be morally perfect for God to save them then it makes sense that you define moral perfection and salvation as it applies to your personal theory.



[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Regarding 1Robins’ theory that : GOD’S STANDARD TO SAVE A PERSON IS MORAL PERFECTION[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Clear asked regarding 1Robin’s next theory of moral perfection needed for salvation: Can you explain this better?(post 4714)
1ROBIN replied : “… God is perfect, if his standard was not perfect he would not be God. We can't be perfect so he became perfection for us. His perfection is legally substituted for ours when we accept Christ. Now he can let us into heaven without having to compromise his perfect nature. (post 4741)

Regarding the statement that " God is perfect, if his standard was not perfect he would not be God. We can't be perfect so he became perfection for us. Now he can let us into heaven without having to compromise his perfect nature. – 1robin
Since God creates morally imperfect beings (ex-nihilo) inside your theory, I assume in your theory God does not mind creating imperfect beings, but just that he can’t allow them to have salvation? Is this correct?

Are you assuming that Lucifer and his colleagues in heaven were perfect at some point, (since they were in heaven with God for an indeterminant period of time)?

Or does your theory feel Lucifer was imperfect, but was allowed to stay in heaven and even become an arch angel due to some other moral exception?

You started out with the theory that God’s standard for “salvation” of an individual was moral “perfection” : However, you then tell us that “legal” perfection is not really moral perfection, that is “legal” perfection “is not the actual case” but that God “calls things that are not, as though they were”. Why would God call something “perfect” when it is actually “imperfect”. Are you somehow saying God will put up with “actual imperfection”, but can call it “legally” perfect in the same manner that an actual rapist is not truly innocent, but he is “legally” innocent because we cannot prove he committed the crime (when he actually did it?)

Your “simple” definition of God’s moral “perfection” is becoming tied up in strange semantics, and so is very, very difficult to keep straight. You are using a lot of obscuring and “hedging” terms (in red...) such as “legal” and “not actual” and “God calls things that are not, as though they were”, and “not the actual case” and “…actual imperfection. We are actually guilty, we are ‘declared’ innocent”, and “no longer viewed” as, and “not guilty legally” (but pardoned).

Can you tell us CLEARLY what moral perfection is in your theory? IF it means, having no moral imperfection (i.e. no prior or current or future sin) then such a simple sentence would make sense (or a different, simple definition of your choice). There is no need to obscure or use semantics, just basic clear points regarding defining what moral “perfection” is.


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] REGARDING 1ROBIN'S DEFINITION OF "SALVATION" IN HIS THEORY

Clear[/FONT][FONT=&quot] asked 1robin : Could you also define what you mean by “salvation” (since that is the “reward” that one must be perfect to gain in your theory. Thanks.

1ROBIN defined it thusly : “ Heaven is not a reward. There are two judgments. The first separates those in the book of life (which occurs when we are born again) with those who are not. The former goes to a second judgment. The latter go to eternal estrangement from God. The second judgment looks at works. All ungodly works are burned up. Whatever is left determines rewards in heaven but not heaven it's self. These are the treasures mention in scripture. No one earns heaven. It is infinite and I have nothing to merit infinity.”


This did not answer the question as to what “salvation” means in your theory. Or did it answer it and it simply isn't clear what the answer is. Are you saying "heaven" is salvation? Can you explain what “salvation” is in your theory? (in some clear and simple manner&#8230
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Thanks in advance for the information in [FONT=&quot]explaining your theory of God's standard being perfection for salvatio[FONT=&quot]n, [/FONT][/FONT] and I wish you a good journey 1Robin.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]σεφυειαψτωω[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]