Dan56

True... I should not have phrased it "God cannot" but rather "God will not".. My point was that God will judge and reward people on the basis of what they actually do. "God will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6). So judgement will not be based on God's foreknowledge. "My reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Revelation 22:12). And no, I would not feel guilty if I had the power to help some while others were harmed. It would be like trying to help the Pharaoh and Moses simultaneously. You can't promote good when you insist on bringing evil along. Exactly my point, its difficult to believe it even needs to be explained. God created man and saw that it was good, referring to man's physical creation. Then God saw the wickedness of man, and God regretted what man chose to do.

Creation was good.... But your statement; "GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation" was false.. Verse 5 says; "GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth". Clearly, God was not pleased with what man had done. His regret was our wickedness, not that his creation was flawed. God did not create wickedness, it emanated from us, and that's what grieved God. Its obvious to one who doesn't read with understanding and has no idea what the context is.. Ask yourself why God regretted it? God created man, meaning our physical bodies and saw that it was good. What displeased God came later, and it wasn't anything God designed. Maybe the test are for our sake's.. The teacher gains nothing but pleasure when a student passes a test, its the student that is ultimately rewarded.. If good works and faithfulness are rewarded, surely they need those attributes on their resume to understand what their accomplishments will yield. God cannot judge someone on the basis of what He knows they would have done or not done. The record is for our understanding of judgement, and the test for our edification and growth.

Never thought of that before, its obviously a government conspiracy to subconsciously promote Christianity

There's really nothing "deep" to understand about atheism, they believe in nothing divine and no deity.. No deep study is required to grasp that simple concept... Sorry if my comment about Atheist not having a problem with Lady Liberty was painful? I had no idea they found the statue offensive. 😊

The difference is that a falling ball doesn't have free choice, so gravity dictates that it will drop, but God doesn't dictate our choices. While you can physically alter the direction of a falling ball, it can't be influenced to change its own direction. Everything a person experiences in life can affect their choices, and just as God can change his own mind, we are free to change our minds and direction. Most every proposition in the bible is conditional; If you keep my commandments, If you believe, etc... Its an open invitation of which the results are not known until the work is finished. A test is just confirmation of what a person has determined to do, untested faith is evidence of nothing.

People often get confused, especially monotheist who believe there's one supreme being, so they might assume Allah and God are the same entity. But the devil is in the details, they are completely different Beings in name and attributes. Mohammad said to seek out and kill your enemies (infidels) where ever you find them (Quran 2:191), while Jesus taught to love and pray for your enemies (Matthew 5:44). Two diametrically opposed messages.. So imo, the differences make it impossible to confuse the real deal with a counterfeit.

I believe it was a gift from France.. And atheist generally only have a problem with things symbolic of Christianity, so I imagine they don't have a problem with a statue that's symbolic of liberty, because its something everyone can relate to.

Not at all, it wasn't my intent to imply that the fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden was a metaphor.. I believe it happened. Not contradictory at all, God was pleased with his 6 day creation; "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) .. But God did not create sin, that was and is a production of man in the aftermath of creation. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6: 5-6). Creation was good, mankind via free will was terrible. Not exactly, I believe God is omniscient but also omnipotent, so while He has knowledge of what will occur, He also has the ability (power) to intercede, changing the natural course of what might have been. E.g; God knocked Saul off his horse on the way to Damascus, changing a villain into a saint.. Consider what was said to Abraham when God stopped him from sacrificing Issac; "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12). This suggest to me that God did not know in advance, freewill and choice can be altered when we are living works in progress.. jmo

Of course God knew where Able was, He is omniscient. Imo, God was giving Cain an opportunity to be accountable, just as He did after Adam sinned; "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" God knew where Adam was just as He knew what Cain had done, as demonstrated in the following verse; "And He said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground" (Genesis 4:10). Obviously, God wasn't asking because He didn't know. He was asking to give Adam, Eve, and Cain a choice. They disobeyed God, so would they also reject God, would pride cause them to lie as well? Today, God still expects us to confess our sins, not because He doesn't already know them, but because it expresses repentance. I believe Genesis 4:16 was simply referring to sending Cain away from the Tabernacle placed by God for His worship, where offerings were brought (Gen 4: 3-4). Sin separates us from God, Cain was removed from the Lords presence in the same sense Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden; "So He drove out the man" (Genesis 3:24). It doesn't mean Cain was invisible to God or that his whereabouts were unknown, just that Cain was separated from God's presence as part of his punishment for his horrible sin.

There are 2 explanations, the most widely accepted is that to understand Genesis 2:4-7, one must first comprehend that this passage is the first biblical historical record of the creation of the heavens and earth, which included the Adam-man of Genesis 1:26-27. If we read this passage separately by itself, we see it: "THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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" (Genesis 2: 4-7). This passage is simply a recapitulation of Genesis chapter 1.. So, there is one creation account with two different focuses. As such, Chapter 1 of Genesis records a general overview of Creation and Chapter 2 zeroes in on the creation of Adam and Eve. But I personally lean towards the second less popular or accepted explanation (interpretation). Some Christians believe that Adam himself was an eighth day creation. God had already created men and women in Genesis 1:27, but Genesis 2:5 says; "There was not a man to till the ground". There were hunters & fishers, but no farmer to tend the ground. "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." (Gen 2:15). While most Christians don't ascribe to this, many believe this specific man was a separate creation for a specific purpose, of who's bloodline Messiah would come.The Hebrew "adam" means man or mankind in general (Gen 1), while "ha adam" with the article, means "the man" referring to a specific man (Adam). With the article and particle "eth ha adam", it is very emphatic and is referring to one specific man (Gen 2:7). In such a case, the animals formed in Genesis 2:19, were specific to Adam (the farmer). Genesis 1:24 refers to the creation of the "beast of the earth", while Genesis 2:19 says "God formed every beast of the field". A differentiation of God forming new domestic animals specifically for Adam. Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image". 'Adam' without the article denotes man or mankind in general, followed by plural pronoun.. The NIV says mankind. Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground." Here, 'man' with the particle in addition to the article "eth ha adam" is singular, referring to a specific man. While most Christians reject this interpretation, it makes the most sense to me.. In either case, there are no contradictions

Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 8:36).. With the presumption that God is Spirit and exist in another dimension, objective facts will never be obtainable knowledge to determine God.

Tree's & plants were created first, but the tree's in Genesis 2 were specific to the Garden of Eden; "The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden" (Genesis 2:8). This was a separate occurrence from Gen 2:5, where God previously made all plants and herbs. Genesis 2:19 is simply giving the details of Genesis 1:24, its a rehash of what had already been created, not a reversal of the previous order. Simply stated, mankind in general was a 6th day creation, after everything else had been made. Genesis 2 is specific to Adam, the tree's and plants already existed but were planted (not created again) in the garden where Adam was placed. Likewise, the birds and animals were not created post Adam, but Genesis 2:19 is just restating what had already been created (animals & birds), which were then brought to Adam to be named; "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field" (Genesis 2:20). The context of Genesis 2 makes it clear; "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them... "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2: 1&4).

"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5). God Himself was the light for the first three days of creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). The " Shechinah Glory" of the Lord is often compared to a bright light, I believe God himself was the source of the light in Genesis 1:3, whereby; "Let there be light" in verse 3 was not a creation, but the emanation of His glory and divine presence. On day 4; "God made two great lights... And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1; 16-17). So God provided (was) the initial light in verse 3 until He created the permanent light later.

How so? I've studied it for years and have found no contradictions.. But I reckon if your looking for some, and take things out of context, you'll generally find whatever your looking for?

But Bigfoot has been seen by eye witnesses.. Granted, its usually witnessed by someone named Bubba while he was fishing down on the Bayou, but he swears the 12 pack of beer he had just finished in no way impaired his vision.. It was definitely a large fur covered bear-like creature standing upright.. How much more proof do you need? 😊

I mistakenly presumed that you would never agree with the bible 😊 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

A person can deduce something is true without objective evidence.. Many people have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a witness or two, yet the gospel is rejected despite many witnesses. If Mutt and Jeff were standing beside you and said they saw me steal a car, you'd likely believe them, but Peter and Paul tell you about Christ and you arbitrarily decide its a lie? So much for relying on our human senses to discern a truth. God is Spirit, he is not of this physical world, all of creation came about by an invisible power from another dimension, so God cannot be proven via conventional evidence. God is beyond our observations, measurements, tests, and methodology of substantiating a truth, so our objectivity can pretty much be thrown out a window. Even a miracle is not evidence, because 'objective' evidence requires our understanding, and since we can't explain a miracle, it can't past our test. If a man claims to love his wife, how can that be true without objective evidence? Love cannot be seen, but we can generally perceive a truth by what love reveals. Could a rational explanation of God really be understood, can we grasp a power beyond what we're capable of comprehending? Science wouldn't suffice even if it offered plausible evidence. Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

" God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).. I reckon that pretty much puts a common atheist fallacy to bed 😊

I believe the first half is possible (atheists can do good), but not the second half (and go to heaven). The New Testament clearly teaches that doing good ain't good enough. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).. I'm obviously not Catholic

Jonathan, your comment about "Jesus is Alive" being fraudulent, misleading, and defective could be construed as an attack against Christians... Mererdog was simply pointing out that you calling it fraudulent was no different than someone referring to something you believed in as fraudulent. Whereby, your response was tantamount to me writing something like; 'From the manner in which Jonathan intrudes Christianity into this thread, it was clearly a shot at me. This is personally insulting & aimed at me" . Imo, meredog didn't say Reiki was fraudulent, so how could the comment be insulting? It was a simple illustration that the billboard was no more fraudulent or deceptive to those who believe Christ lives, than something you believe in (Reiki) is defective to you. Twas a valid point, no reason to be thin-skinned, jmo.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-sea-archaeologists-discover-remains-of-egyptian-army-from-the-biblical-exodus/

I suspect that a few thousand years from now, that if someone presented a copy of our constitution as evidence that our republic was once formed and existed, some people would reject it because it lacked objective verifiable evidence.. Evidence, no matter how compelling, can be rejected by anyone who doesn't want to believe or accept it.. You could tell someone that if they jumped into the Grand Canyon, they would plunge to their death, but they wouldn't believe it unless they experienced it for themselves. Sometimes you don't need direct evidence to believe something, you just need to put height and gravity together, then the realization that you'll die if you jump off a cliff is supported by more than just subjective evidence. That was my point with scripture, when you put its historical, archeological, and prophetic accuracy together,, combined with 35 witnesses who recorded it all in detail, and no contradicting verifiable evidence to prove it false, then you have a pretty good case for factual events.

Atheist don't nit-pick a path that requires faith, its pretty much; no proof no path, so they disregard it completely. And a person of faith can't compromise without abandoning their faith, so being 'fair' on either side of the conversation is an impossibility. When one person believes and the other doesn't, stipulations are moot points in a disagreement that can't be reconciled. And as chuchulain said in his opening remarks, its a fallacy that an Atheist is obligated to defend anything, nor is it necessary for them to cherry pick stipulations that might make a 'path' more acceptable, because they dismiss everything without concrete evidence to substantiate it as factual. If you can't appease someone in a debate, they'll never consider you fair, in fact, you'll likely just tick them off.. jmo

Jesus said it, and Christians believe he had the moral authority. "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). If someone is persuaded to believe that something is true, its not coercion. No force is used, and for those who decide its not true, damnation means absolutely nothing and is no threat. I've never been screamed at, but even so, I could care less about their version of hell because I don't believe they're correct.. Imo, its no hate crime to verbally express what you believe.. Its a hate crime to prevent freedom of speech in order to suppress religious liberty and opinion. Most of Gnostic gospels were written long after the fact by unknown authors. They aren't in the official canon because they could not be authenticated, and most of them blatantly contradict the synoptic gospels which were written by apostles. To believers, Christ determined what the Truth is; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me " (John 14:6) Christians aren't suppose to judge others in a condemning fashion. We use discernment to determine right from wrong, but condemnation is God's domain. The laws are there for all who choose to observe them, again, this is not coercive. Everyone, including Christians are free to sin or obey the commandments. A quick look at the world demonstrates that my God's laws aren't being forced on anyone. Christians believe that when you repent, your forgiven, even if you fall back and repeat the sin. But God is not mocked, the hypocrite who willfully sins and is unrepentant, is not forgiven until they repent. "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26) I previously mentioned that I don't believe hell will be occupied by innocent people who've never heard the gospel, all will have a chance to accept Christ, including those who didn't hear of him during their life on earth. There's no free pass, Christ paid the price for all who receive it and accept him into their lives. All have sinned, we are all guilty and worthy of death, so it doesn't matter how 'good' a person is, without a Savior, the Lake of Fire awaits us all.

Not respecting something that you believe is a load of baloney does not constitute a lack of compassion. While I respect and accept everyone's right to believe what they want, I find it impossible to respect something I believe is false. Compassion has nothing to do with it, except in the sense that I'm sympathetic towards those who have the misfortune of believing something that I perceive to be a lie. The difference between Allah and God is that Allah inspires believers to exact punishment, while the biblical God says; "Vengeance is mine" (Romans 12:19). And imo, there are no internal contradictions in the bible, but that's a whole different subject.